Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council - 08/01/1989
AGENDA EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, AUGUST 1, 1989 7:30 PM, CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J. Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Finance Director John D. Frane, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Gene Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund I. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND OTHER ITEMS OF BUSINESS II. MINUTES A. Regular City Council m eetin held Tuesday, July 18, 1989 Page 1789 III. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Clerk's License List Page 1801 B. Final Plat Approval of Flal___:_—iertY Second Addition A.K.A. Preserve Page 1802 oih (located south of Medcom Sou evard and east of T.H. 169) Resolution No. 89-167 C. Appro_v? Change Order No. 1, Franlo Road Street and Utility Page 1805 Improvements, I.C. 52 02 D. Approve Easement A_ rg eem�nt with King of Glory Church Page 1807 E. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 22-89, Prohibiting Parking Vehicles Page 1620 Overnight in Parks F. DATASERV by Opus Corporation. Denial of 2nd Reading of Ordinance Page 1809 No. 40-88, request for PUD Amendment Review on 17.4 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on 17.4 acres with a waiver for office use up to 1O0% within the I-2 Zoning District, Zoning District Change from Rural to I-2 on 7.4 acres and Preliminary Plat of 17.4 acres into 1 lot for construction of additional parking spaces for the Datasery Headquarters. Location: South of Technology Drive, east of Prairie Center Drive. (Resolution No. 89-168 - Denial of 2nd Reading) G. PRESERVE SOUTH by Lariat Companies, Inc. 2nd Reading of Ordinance Page 1811 No. 17-89-PUD-4-89, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres with waivers, and Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 9.07 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Preserve South; and Adoption of Resolution No. 89- 169, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 17-89-PUD-4-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 18 acres into 2 lots for construction of a 25,248 square foot theatre complex. Location: East of Highway #169, south of Medcom Boulevard. (Ordinance No. 17-89-PUD-4-89 - PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-169 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) City Council Agenda - 2 - Tues.,August I, I989 H. EDEN SQUARE by The Robert Larsen Partners. 2nd Reading of Page 1821 Ordinance No. 5-89-PUD-3-89, Planned Unit Development District Review on 9.59 acres within the C-Reg-Ser Zoning District with waivers; Approval of Supplement to Developer's Agreement for Eden Square; and Adoption of Resolution No. 89-170, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance No. 5-89-PUD-3-89, and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 11.72 acres into 3 lots for construction of a 60,794 square foot commercial development. Location: Northeast corner of Highway #169 and Prairie Center Drive. (Ordinance No. 5-89-PUD-3- 89, PUD District and Zoning District Amendment within the C-Reg-Ser District; Resolution No. 89-170 - Authorizing Summary and Publication) I. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW. 2nd Reading of Page 1775 Ordinance No. 25-89, Amending Subdivision 6A, Section 11.03, Chapter 11, requiring site plan and architectural design review prior to building permit issuance in all districts and with respect to allowing for eictension of approval. J. Approval of Bids for I.C. 52-169 (Street Name Signs) Resolution Page 1831 No. 89-173 K. Special Assessment Agreement for Elim Shores Page 1832 L. EDENVALE BUSINESS CENTER II by Equitable Life Assurance. Request Page 1835 for Extension of Time Deadline in Developer's Agreement for Edenvale Business Center II to August 1, 1990 M. Approve Change Order No. s MCA Traffic Signs, I.C. 52-134 Page 1836 N. VALLEY GATE SOUTH by The Helle Group. Approval of Supplement to Page 1840 evueloeloper's Agreement for construction of 63,368 square foot office/warehouse within the I-2 Zoning District. Location: Northeast corner of Golden Triangle Drive and West 74th Street 0. Preliminary Approval for Issuance of Bonds in the Amount of Page 1844 36,540,000 for Prairie Village Apartments Projects Resolution No. 89-174) P. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 21-89, Amending City Code 3.05, Page 1739 Subd. 8.b., Relating to Liens for Municipal Utility Charges and Adopting by Reference City Code Chapter Except Section 1_03 Thereof IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. VACATION NO. 89-09 - Vacation of Street Right-of-Way and Page 1845 Drainage and Utility Easements within Ridgewood West Resolution No. 89-166 8. EDEN PRAIRIE FUNERAL HOME by Marcus Corporation. Request for Page 1646 Guide Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial on 0.95 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to Community Commercial on 0.95 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat of 0.95 acres into 1 lot for the construction of a funeral home. Location: Southwest corner of Terrey Pine Drive and County Road #4. City Council Agenda - 3 - Tues.,August 1, 1989 C. LAMETTRY CENTER by Richard A. LaMettry. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Regional Service on 1.88 acres, Page 1892 Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat of 1.88 acres into 1 lot for construction of a 32,698 square foot auto body repair facility. Location: West of Plaza Drive, southeast of Menards. (Ordinance No. 26-89, Rezoning; Resolution No. 89-171 - Preliminary Plat) V. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Page 1897 VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS A. Resolution No. 89-172, Setting the City's Preliminary 1990 Tax Page 1908 Levy B. Ordinance No. 27-89, Firearm Discharge Zone Page 1911 C. Ordinance No. 28-89, Changing Mayor Term from Two to Four Years Page 1918 VII. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & COMMUNICATIONS A. FREEBURG/PERKINS ADDITION by Clayton Freeburg. Appeal from the Page 1920 Decision of the Board of Appeals for a Registered Land Survey of 2.84 acres into 3 lots with variances within the R1-22 Zoning District. Location: 7010 Willow Creek Road. B. Parade Permit Application for Project Concern - Walk for Mankind Page 1953 C. Request for Funding from Southwest Corridor Coalition ( ,, p =;- VT'T. REPORTS OF ADVISORY COMMISSIONS 1X. APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment of Consumer Representative to the South Hennepin Page 1961 Services Counci two fill an unexpired term to January 31L 1991 X. REPORTS OF OFFICERS, BOARDS & COMMISSIONS A. Reports of Council Members B. Report of City Manager C. Report of City Attorney D. Report of Director of Planning E. Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources 1. Petition from Chatham Woods Residents for Mini-Park Page 1962 2. Miller Park Page 1982 3. Request from Jeanne Carsello for Memberships at Community Page 1987 Center — — 9 F. Report of Director of Public Works G. Report of Finance Director XI. NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT Item: Hunting Zone July 31, 1989 City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN. 5534' Dear Mayor and Council Members: We all realize Eden Prairie is a rapidly changing and growing community. The southwest corner of the City is starting to feel this growth, and hunting cannot continue in the future. Myself and a few friends have hunted waterfowl on my Mother's farmland in this area for several years. The property is secluded and basically unchanged since it was first farmed. This land and the surrounding area consists of 3 DNR designated wetlands, and several hundred acres of farmland and woods. There are no homes, roads or development at this time, although some of this land has been sold and changes are imminent in the near future. We feel since this area will not be disturbed this year, and is not easily accessible, it might be possible to continue waterfowl hunting for this coming fall of 1989. In past years, there has been no problems or complaints with this area as far as we know. sincerely, Paul Jacques MEMORADUM TO: Mayor and City Council City Manager Carl Jullie FROM: Chief of Police Keith Wall SUBJECT: Parade Permit Request by Project Concern International DATE: July 31, 1989 Section 6.20 of the City Code requires that the Chief of Police report findings regarding parade requests as described by an organization in its application for a City permit. These findings cover the following areas: 1) Whether the parade will cause a hazard to persons or property; 2) Whether the parade will cause great inconvenience to the public; and 3) Whether the Chief of Police is able to make arrangements for necssary direction and control of traffic. As related in the memorandum from Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson regarding this parade permit, I cannot state that I will be able to make the logistical and staff arrangements necessary for the safe direction and control of traffic. Without these measures being taken for public safety, the parade could present a hazard to persons and property. For these reasons, I recommend denial of the parade permit as an appropriate action. • 9 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL UNAPPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, July 18, 1989 7:30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERS: Mayor Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, City Attorney Roger Pauly, Director of Planning Chris Enger, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Robert Lambert, Director of Public Works Eugene A. Dietz, and Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: All Members Present I. APPRDYA1,07._AD.ENDA._.AN.D._OTHER_I_TEMS OF BUSINESS MQT3ON;, Anderson moved, seconded by Harris to approve the Agenda as published and amended. ADDITIONS:, ADD Item M, Freeburg Appeal of Board's Denial of variance 489- 31 to the Consent Calendar. ADD Item VII.A, Lariat Company Request for Early Grading Permit. ADD Item X.A.2, Report on meeting attended by Mayor Peterson. MOVE: Item III.H from the Consent Calendar to Item IV.D. Motion carried unanimously to approve the Agenda as amended. II. MINUTES A. City Council _and...Timber Lakes Homeowners_,_As_spciaJion meeting Held Tuesday, November 154 1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of the City Council and Timber Lakes Homeowners Association meeting held Tuesday, November 15, 1988. 1 City Council Minutes 2 July 18, 1989 Hafflb Iequebted that Pa9t 2, V•Y2.Y')iai+h 4 be reworded for clarification. Motion carried 4-0-1 to approve the minutes, subject to the approval of the reconstruction of Paragraph 4, Page 2. Tenpas abstained. B. City Council Meetlri�.gheid Tuesday, 1.1_ovembex 15, 1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held Tuesday, November 15, 1988 as published. Motion carried 4-0-1. Tenpas abstained. C. Special Eden Prairie Clty_Council Meet_lrig_heicl Tiie ]ayi Ngvern. r 291_1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of the Special Eden Prairie City Council Meeting held Tuesday, November 29, 1988 as published. Motion carried 4-0-1. Tenpas abstained. D. City CouncilMeeting_ held Tuesday,_._December 13.,....1988 MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the Minutes of the City Council Meeting held Tuesday, December 13, 1988 as published. Motion carried 4-0-1. Tenpas abstained. E. cityCouncil and Board ofApheals and AdjustmentsMeeting field ThplLsday, June 27_,_ 198.9_ MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the Minutes of the City Council and Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting held Thursday, June 27, 1989 as published. Motion carried 4-0-1. Peterson abstained. • III. CONSENT..CALENDAE3, A. Clerk's License List B. H;DDEN__.GLEN_Iv, by Frontier Midwest Homes Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance #10-89, Zoning District Change from RM-6.5 to R1-9.5 on 7.5 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Hidden Glen Iv; and Adoption of Resolution #89-121, Authorizing summary of Ordinance #10- j)9a City Council Minutes 3 July 18, 1989 89 and ordering Publication of Said Summary. 7.13 acres into 26 single family lots. Location: South and east of Highway 4101, west of Dell Road. (Ordinance 410-89, Rezoning; Resolution 489-121, Authorizing Summary and Publication) C. CHATHAM RIDGE 2ND ADDITION, by Centex Real Estate Corporation. 2nd Reading of Ordinance 420-89, Zoning District Change from R1-13.5 to R1-9.5 on 8.13 acres; Approval of Developer's Agreement for Chatham Ridge 2nd Addition; and Adoption of Resolution 489-165, Authorizing Summary of Ordinance 020-89 and Ordering Publication of Said Summary. 8.13 acres into 23 single family lots. Location: North and west of Cumberland Road, northeast of Wellington Drive. (Ordinance 420-89, Rezoning; Resolution 489-165, Authorizing Summary and Publications). D. Final Plat Approval of Ridgewood west_._6th Addition located soIlth _of.. Anderson Lakes Parkway and_tiy_r_th of Wellington Drive) Resolution No. 89-159. E. FinalPlat,.,._A.pprovaI_of Hidden Glen 4th_._Acldit3QD_._Iloca_te,� snut.t�and east_of Hwy_101 nrl.._w?�t of�ell Road.) Resolution No. 89-153. F. Approve Plans and AuthorizeBidg_for Country Glen Street and Utility Imprnvements, L_C. 52-171 (Resolution No. 89- 160). G. Change Order No. 1,.__Trunk Witermain Extension„ Eden Prairie Rp,ad (C,_3,1, i}_._4_LandPioneer Trail__LC S._.A.H,. 1), I.C.t._52142.. H. Approval__ of .atifamily Hoy.Wising_[teveni)g__Refund"ipg_aonclz, .(FountainPlace Apartments Project Phase II), t 2,W,0c) Exs=lut �Si 4139_162.. (MOVED TO ITEM IV.D) I. Approval-_of :an..Ordinance...A(1endIll3Cit code._Sectlun_.3_0.5_ $04,. 9 RP,l,atADS__toLien3 for Municipal_Utility Charges and_Ad.pt_ing_by_Reference Clty codeChptr 1� Except Section1.03_Thereof. Ordinance 421-89. J. Authorizing Sale. of 2,,700,.000 ln_Refundlng,,_Bondsfor the LakevigwHue_iness Center- _(Resolution U6871631. K. Approveapeci,9,1Assessmen Agreer pt for Fountain. place Apartments. L. Approve Plans andAythorizg Bids for.._Bluff Road Inj>rovements. I.C. 52_144•._....(.R.esolut_Losi 489-164) g� M. FTrrlftrq. Appr l. .of Board ot_.*peals and 4dit.1 tlte'tltn venial ss- of Variance 489-31 City Council Minutes 4 July 18, 1989 MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to approve the COnSent Calendar as amended by moving Item III.H to IV.D and by adding Item III.M. . Motion carried unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. EDENVALE CROSSINGS, by Marcor Properties, Inc. Request for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commercial on 21 acres, Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment and Planned Unit Development District Review on 21 acres with waivers, Zoning District Amendment within the C-Com Zoning District on 7.5 acres, Site Plan Review, and Preliminary Plat of 7.5 acres into 1 lot for construction of 38, 056 square feet of commercial uses. Location: East of Mitchell Road, southeast of Martin Drive, Mitchell Road intersection. (Resolution 489-134, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment; Resolution 489-135, PUD Concept Amendment; Ordinance 423089-PUD-6-89, PUD District and Rezoning; Resolution #89-136, Preliminary Plat) Dawson reported that notice of the public hearing had been sent to owners of 12 surrounding properties and published in the July 5, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Jim Winkel, representing the proponent, stated that the project would consist of 3 buildings. The proponent had worked with MnDot to set aside the property necessary for the expansion of Mitchell Road. Winkel added that the grade of the property would match that of Mitchell Road. Whitney Patton, representing Coldwell Banker marketing, stated that the office building would be occupied by a national real estate company. The proponent was negotiating with Amoco and SuperAmerica for the gas station facility, and the anchor for the strip mall would be a national paint and wallpaper store. Patton added that Davanni's and Greenstreets had expressed interested in locating in the mall. At this time the remaining spaces were speculative. Darrell Anderson, architect, stated that the present road system would he modified to provide adequate stacking distance. There was a 30-foot difference in elevations on • the property and, therefore, the property would be terraced at 3 levels. The prnject was forced closer to • Mitchell Road because of the water pipe running along the back portion of the property. Anderson noted that all the vegetation for landscaping would be placed in the area which would not be affected by the highway. The exterior of the mall would be gray tone masonry with a rust-red metal facia. The signage would be contained within a 3- City Council Minutes 5 July 18, 1989 foot sign band and would comply with City Code. Cedar panels would be used at the entry ways and would be stained to compliment the brick colors. The service area in the rear of the building would have a canopy to enhance the appearance. The office building would carry the same roof design and color scheme as the strip mall. Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this item at the June 12 and 26, 1989 meetings and had voted unanimously to approve the project at the June 26, 1989 meeting based on the recommendations outlined in the June 23, 1989 Staff Report. Lambert reported that the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission had reviewed this item at its July 17, 1989 meeting and had voted unanimously to approve the proposal. Harris asked if the concern of KinderCare had been addressed regarding the construction of the road modification. Anderson replied that the modification would not disturb any of the operations. Patton added that road work by the Mexican village would be modified first and the work would be done during non-business hours. Councilmember Anderson asked if the trail on the east side of the creek would be completed at this time. Lambert replied that an asphalt trail would be constructed from the bridge out to Mitchell Road. Anderson stated that he was concerned about what would be seen from the back of the building by residents at the top of the hill along Purgatory Creek or passing along the trail by the creek. He believed that this area was unique because of the amenities and that both sides of the building should be utilized in a special positive manner. Winkel replied that the amenities had been taken into consideration. Winkel stated that any building had to have a front and a back. Winkel added that the building design had been given a residential character which extended around to the sides of the facility. Winkel noted that the trash area would be well-screened. Landscaping would be provided in several different areas and at different intervals throughout the property. Winkel stated that the property would be maintained by a • professional service. Winkel agreed that the view from the creek was a delicate issue; however, he believed that this proposal was an appropriate use for the property. Councilmember Anderson then stated that the Council had been led to believe in other instances that the issues of Ficreening and proper maintenances of the property would be taken care of; however, they often were not taken care of properly. Anderson added that there was not enough detail City Council Minutes 6 July 18, 1989 frc,ffl tilt blueprint to ht ablr_. to @nvieion what th' back of the building would look like. Anderson was concerned about the image of this parcel of property. Pidcock stated that the City had created a park adjacent to this parcel which she believed had been totally ignored while planning this development. Winkel stated that retailers would not be comfortable located in the hack of the mall and added that office space was not a good market at this time. Tenpas asked if the proponent had done other projects in Eden Prairie. Winkel replied that he had been in business for over a year and prior to that he and his partner had worked for another firm on the Edinborough project in Edina. Tenpas then asked if another strip mall would be marketable. Patton replied that Eden Prairie was becoming more attractive to retailers. Patton added that he believed the land uses proposed for the property were appropriate. Peterson asked how many feet would he between the east of the building at the northern end and the planting area. Darrell Anderson replied a 5-foot walkway would be provided. Peterson then asked if deliveries would be made from both the front and the back of the facility. Patton replied that this facility would be similar to the Shady Oak and Eden Glen centers. Peterson asked if there would be any physical barriers preventing the motorists from cutting through the parking lot to obtain access to the property to the south. Anderson replied that the road system had been designed to accommodate MnDot's long-range plans. Patton believed that the eastern road would be the preferred route. Pidcock asked if speed bumps would be placed in the parking lot. Anderson replied there would not be speed bumps due to difficulty in snowplowing and for insurance reasons. Councilmember Anderson stated that he liked the appearance of the front of the building; however, the City had preserved this green area and he wanted to see it utilized. Anderson added that he did not believe the proponent had given any importance to the back portion of the property. Enger stated that Staff had had discussions with the proponent regarding the back of the building. Enger gave examples within the City of how other projects which were adjacent to similar ,amenities had utilized them, such as the Shady Oak Centre, where courtyards had been created and the Foodfare/Dairy Queen, which had two fronts. Enger 094 City Council Minutes 7 July 18, 1989 stated that there were uses where the open green space would be desirable; however, these would not be the traditional uses for a strip mall. The proponent did have the opportunity to wrap windows around the corners of the building without an affect on the proposed architecture. The service area and the trash areas would be enclosed and screened. Enger noted that the proponent would need to pay close attention to the back of the gas station and the electrical transformers. Peterson questioned if the screening to the east would not block the view and possible use of the creek. Anderson stated that he would like to have this item returned to Staff for further review. Patton stated that marketing the facility was a user- sensitive issue and difficult from the planning stage. Winkel stated that the building design depended on the use proposed and added that a majority of tenants would not be concerned about the amenities at the back of the facility. He also believed that the chances were slim that a restaurant would choose to locate in the southern portion of the facility. Peterson believed that Councllmember Anderson had provided compelling arguments for further study into the use of the available amenities of the property by the proponent. Peterson stated that the Council would like to see the appearance of the back of the building softened. Tenpas believed that these modifications could be accomplished cosmetically. Tenpas did not believe that the Council should limit the types of tenants which could locate here by restricting the design of the building. Patton stated that the proponent was utilizing only 4 acres out of the 7.5-acre site. He added that the back of the project had been designed to work with the conservancy easement and water lines, and the front of the project had been designed to work with MnDot to accommodate its long- term plans. Patton requested that the proponent be allowed to work with Staff to accomplish the changes required to soften the appearance of the back of the building without restricting the type of tenants to which the mall could be marketed. Harris stated that she was familiar with other quality projects done by the proponent and would he comfortable requesting that the proponent work with Staff to soften the appearance of the back of the building. There were no further comments from the audience. City Council Minutes 8 July 18, 1989 MOTION! Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution 489-134 for Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment. Pidcock believed that the proponent had limited its options by the consideration of a strip mall and had not given enough emphasis on marketing strategies to utilize the amenities. Tenpas questioned what homes would be able to see the back of the building. Anderson replied that the trail system had been planned for use by residents and employees in this area of the City for some time. He believed this parcel of property to be unique because of the amenities available. Anderson suggested that windows would help soften the appearance of the back of the building. Tenpas believed that windows in the back of the building could create security problems. Peterson noted that because Planning Director Enger had stated that staff had had discussions with the proponent regarding the appearance of the back of the building and had been close to reaching an agreement, he believed the approach of resolving issues prior to second reading of the rezoning ordinance would be acceptable to the Council. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Tenpas to amend the previous motion to state that further conversations were to take place between the proponent and Staff related to the appearance of the back of the strip mall prior to 2nd Reading. Pauly noted that the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change would not require a 2nd Reading; however, the zoning would. Pauly suggested that the Council could consider the 1st Reading of the Ordinance for the PUD District Review and Rezoning and consider the Guide Plan Amendment resolution coincident with the 2nd Reading. . Harris withdrew the motion. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution 489-135 for PUD Concept Amendment. Motion carried 4-1, with Anderson voting "NO". n96 City Council Minutes 9 July 18, 1989 MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to Approve 1st Reading Ordinance #23-89-PUD-6-89 for PUD District Review and Rezoning with a continued dialogue and negotiation between Staff and the proponent regarding the appearance of the back of the mall and that the tree plantings and other vegetation would provide adequate screening. Motion carried 4-1, with Anderson voting "NO". MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution #89- 136 for Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to prepare a development agreement incorporating Commission, Staff and Council conditions previously noted. Motion carried 4-1, with Anderson voting "NO". B. GJ lLLE_.ADDITZON., by David and Linda Guille. Request for Zoning District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 1.47 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 1.47 acres into three single family lots and road right-of-way. Location: Southeast corner of Starrwood Circle and Mitchell Road. (Ordinance No.34-89, Rezoning; Resolution #89-161, Preliminary Plat) Dawson reported that notice of the public hearing had been sent to 17 surrounding property owners and published in the July 5, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News. Frank Cardarelle, representing the proponent, stated that the plan was for a 3-lot subdivision. The proponent concurred with the recommendations outlined in the Staff Report. The existing garage would be torn down and a new garage constructed. Enger reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this item at its June 26, 1989 meeting and recommended approval on a unanimous vote. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the public hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance #24-89 for Rezoning. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to adopt Resolution #89- 161 fair Preliminary Plat and direct Staff to prepare a development agreement incorporating Commission and Staff recommendations. Motion carried unanimously. City Cuuncil Minutes 10 July 18, 1989 gITv N AN ANO APC4Ima TUPAb t+LaT�td pgvtu:W, RrqilrbY }ail amending Subdivision 6A, Section 11.03, Chapter 11, requiring Site plan and architectural design review prior to building permit issuance in all districts and with respect to allowing for extension of approval. (Ordinance #25-89) Dawson reported that notice of the public hearing was published in the July 5, 1989 issue of the Eden Prairie News. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to close the public hearing and approve 1st Reading of Ordinance #25-89. Motion carried unanimously. D. Ad,?gr.Oya1 u.f_Mult,�.fAm.l y HOi,1�,ing._Rhvenuz. Refunding._Bonds (FountainPlace 1�... arlillent QX.u>er�t_...----_Pha e II),. v1211,op,poo Resolution #89 .162. There were no comments from the audience. MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve Resolution #89-162. Motion carried unanimously. • V. PAYMENT-_OF- C A111S • MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Anderson to approve Payment of Claims No. 52178 through No. 52525. Peterson question Claim N 52384 to the Hennepin County Treasurer for May 89 Board of Prisoners-Police Department for $4,381.40. Dawson replied that this was payment for person moved from the Eden Prairie Police Station to the County Jail. Dawson added that approximately $43,000 was budgeted this year for this type of expense. Tenpas asked why the prisoners did not stay at the Eden Prairie facility. Pauly replied that the facilities were not designed for long-term holding. ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, Harris, Pidcock, Tenpas, and Peterson all voted "AYE". VI. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS 1 J�� City Council Minutes 11 July 18, 1989 VII. PETITI(NS,_REQ JE T;_._A COMMUUNICATIONS A. Lariat amD3ni.es Resin stforEarlyGradingPermit MOTION: Harris moved, seconded by Anderson to grant an early grading permit to the Lariat Companies, Inc. with the understand that it was proceeding at its own risk. Motion carried unanimously. VIII . REPORT,,^, OF ADVI_RORY_C_.OMMI,tiIQtl_G IX. APPOINTt1ENTS X. REPORTS.,_OFOFFICERS,_._gOARDS _COMMIS?TnNE A. Rtportsof Council Members 1. Oiacus_ on Of._Ctty__H3il. Peterson asked for the Council's comments regarding the possibility of a new City Hall. Pidcock stated that it would have been helpful to have received a synopsis of the previous studies conducted. Peterson concurred. Anderson believed that this topic should be discussed at a special session. Anderson stated that the City was getting close to the expiration of its lease of the present facility and believed that there were more benefits to the City owning a facility rather than leasing one. Peterson stated that residents; had voiced the desire to know more about the School District's and the City's long- range plans. Petersor, asked if the Councilmembers had considered any sites. Pidcock believed that the location south of the Police station on Mitchell Road made sense because of the other City facilities located in this area. Harris stated that she did not have a strong allegiance to any particular site; however, it would be important to investigate the possible need of the other City facilities to expand at the Mitchell Road site. Anderson believed that it was important for the City to obtain a site and then proceed with a bond referendum. He • „14:1,i4. uc}iuol di5trict6 :and other cothmunitieb rifted proceeded this way so that the location of the facility did not become an issue of the referendum. rig9 City Council Minutes 12 July 18, 1989 Harris believed that funding would be a major issue. Tenpas stated that there would be long-term financial benefits; however, there would also be an impact on short- term spending. Tenpas believed the Council needed to be sensitive to these issues. Tenpas questioned what the City's needs over the next ten years would be and believed those needs should be prioritized. Tenpas noted that many outside influences affected the residents' decisions. Peterson believed that this issue needed to be addressed this fall. Anderson noted that the City had spent a lot of time and effort on studies four years ago and did not believe the results of those studies had changed. Peterson requested that Staff provide a summary of the information regarding this issue over the last several years. 2. Report attended by_Mayor Peterson Peterson stated that MnDot Commissioner Len Levine had invited nine people to serve on a committee to investigate alternative methods of highway funding. The committee met for organizational purposes today and would meet 6 to 9 times over the next 2 to 3 months. The only alternative discussed at the meeting was the possibility of toll roads and bridges, approaches which had been studied twice over the last few years. B. Repor t of City M.an,agF r C. ReQurt_uf__cl_ty_,Attorney_ D. ii.epQrt of Director of Planning, E. Dlrtet.9.17,.._Qf__.P:9.rks...._R_ecrp l4n atIl l_R .squIces. F. Report of Director of Public Works G. Report._,of...Finance Director: XI . NEW BUSINESS XII. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpas to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM. Motion carried unanimously. /POU CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE CLERK'S LICENSE APPLICATION LIST August 1, 1989 CONTRACTOR (MULTI-FAMILY & COMM.) WELL DRILLING Acoustics Associates, Inc. Ruppert & Son Well Drilling Dahn Builders, Inc. Dean & Associates, Inc. Robert Kroells Construction HEATING & VENTILATING Lakeland Nursery, Inc. Shelter Resources Corp. Cherokee Refrigeration, Inc. Sidex Corporation of Minnesota Dean's Heating & Air Conditioning Marsh Heating & Air Conditioning CONTRACTOR (1 & 2 FAMILY) GAS FITTER Allen-Lee Homes, Inc. D & R Custom Builders Dean's Heating & Air Conditioning J. Dresser Construction Larson Plumbing, Inc. Michael Halley Homes, Inc. Marsh Heating & Air Conditioning Marnie Development, Inc. Preferred Mechanical Services, Inc. S & I Remodeling Southern Decks T & J Improvements PEDDLAR Teri Construction Terrance Peter Godfrey PLUMBING (Fabian Seafood at PDQ) Conner Plumbing 3.2 BEER ON SALE Eide Plumbing Company Riven Plumbing Detello's Pizza & Pasta Custom Plumbing These licenses have been approved by the department heads responsible for the licensed activity. (14L Pat Solie Licensing CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-I67 A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLAT OF FLAHERTY SECOND ADDITION WHEREAS, the plat of FLAHERTY SECOND ADDITION has been submitted in a manner required for platting land under the Eden Prairie Ordinance Code and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Eden Prairie. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. Plat approval request for FLAHERTY SECOND ADDITION is approved upon compliance with the recommendation of the City Engineer's report on this plat dated JULY 27, 1989. B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy of this Resolution to the owners and subdivision of the above named plat. C. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon compliance with the foregoing provisions. ADOPTED by the City Council on AUGUST 1, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk /7Ua CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE ENGINEERING REPDRT DN FINAL PLAT TO: Mayor Peterson and City Council Members THROUGH: Carl J. Jullie, City Manager Alan D. Gray, City Engineer FROM: Jeffrey Johnson, Engineering Technician DATE: July 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Flaherty Second Addition PRDPOSAL: The Developers, Lariatt Companies, Inc., have requested City Council approval of the final plat of Flaherty Second Addition. Located south of Medcom Boulevard and east of Trunk Highway 169, the plat contains 13 acres to be divided into 2 lots. Lot 1 is the proposed site of a 25,248 square foot theatre complex and Lot 2 will be retained by the developers for future commercial development. HISTORY: The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council June 6, 19B9 per Resolution No. 89-126. Second reading of Ordinance No. 17-89-PUD-4-89, Zoning District change from Rural to Commercial-Regional-Service, is scheduled for the August 1, 19B9 City Council meeting. The Developer's Agreement referred to within this report is scheduled for execution at the City Council meeting August 1, 1989. VARIANCES: All variance requests must be processed through the Board of Appeals. UTILITIES AND STREETS: Municipal utilities and streets necessary to serve this subdivision have been installed and are available to serve this site. To facilitate the placement of the building on the site, it may be necessary to relocate storm sewer facilities, this work will be done in conformance with City Standards. In order to provide adjacent properties with sanitary sewer, the developer shall be responsible for extending an existing sanitary sewer to the easterly property line. Prior to release of the final plat the developer shall enter into a special assessment agreement for the future extension and upgrading of Medcom Boulevard. /10� Page 2 of 2 FLAHERTY SECOND ADDITION July 27, 1989 PARK DEDICATION: Prior to release of the final plat the developer shall provide the City with a conservation easement for preservation and trail purposes as described in Item 3C of the Developer's Agreement, all other park dedication shall conform to City Code and the Developer's Agreement requirements. BONDING: Prior to release of the final plat the developer shall provide the City with a financial guarantee to cover the costs of relocation and extension of existing municipal facilities. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the final plat of Flaherty Second Addition subject to the requirements of this report and the following: 1. Receipt of street lighting fee in the amount of $594.00. 2. Receipt of engineering fee in the amount of $1,300.00. 3. Receipt of conservation easement for preservation and trail purposes. 4. Execution of special assessment agreement for extension of Medcom Boulevard. 5. Satisfaction of bonding requirements. JJ:ssa cc: Ed Flaherty, Lariatt Companies, Inc. BRW, Inc. q/'f/ • CHANGE ORDER O1 I.C. 52-132 Franlo Road - Street and Utility Improvements TO: City of Eden Prairie Changes made for work performed in this contract: NATURE OF CHANCES: 1. Add guard rail to south side of Franlo Road. Guard rail is necessary because of the steepness of the slope beyond the curb. 2. Additional cutting and grading necessary to provide a safe and useable driveway for the residents of 8511 Franlo Road. 3. Replacement of part of the Lund's Store sprinkler system damaged during construction of water main at northwest corner of Lunds. Sprinkler system was installed after plans were completed. 4. Removal of tree stumps. Work was done to facilitate the cutting and grading behind the curb. 5. Change from 5" of concrete to 4" plus wire mesh for concrete driveway at 8561 Franlo Road. Work was done to match homeowners existing driveway. 6. Payment for 10' of curb taken out and replaced with pedestrian ramp at request of the City Engineering Department. 7. Payment for taking out 10' of existing curb at existing catch basin. 8. Delete retaining wall after material was on site. 9. Move curb stop due to second driveway at 8480 Franlo which homeowner required. ADJUSTMENTS TO CONTRACT COSTS: 1. Add the following quantities and costs to the contract: Guardrail Design "A" 217.5 L.F. @ $ 13.25 - $ 3,146.88 Twisted End Treatments 2 @ $600.00 - 1,200.00 2. Foreman 5 hr. @ $ 42.36 - 211.80 Loader Operator 6 hr. @ $ 37.34 - 224.04 450 Dozer 5 hr. @ $ 24.97 - 124.85 950 Loader 5 hr. @ $ 56.95 - 284.75 Compactor 1 hr. @ $ 33.16 - 33.16 Class 5 50 Ton @ $ 4.38 - 219.00 3. Sprinkler System Replacement Lump Sum 600.00 4. Removal of Tree Stumps 54 Ea. @ $ 57.50 - 3,105.00 5. Change to 4" Concrete plus wire mesh (addition cost) 77 S.Y. @ $ 2.90 - 223.30 6. Remove and Replace Curb 10 L.F. @ $ 17.25 - 172.50 7. Remove 10' of Curb 1 Section @ $ 57.50 - 57.50 8. Removal of Material Lump Sum $230.00 - 230.00 9. Relocate Curb Stop 1 @ $157.00 - 157.00 Total Additions $9,990.64 IYO' • THE ABOVE CHANGES ARE APPROVED Engineer / City of Eden Prairie By i741 2'i� Y21 By Date /9-5g Date THE ABOVE HA N ES ARE ACC PT Contrac r /' By Date y—eZ • JOIN STORM SEWER EASEMENT AGREEMENT I.C. 52-172 This Agreement made this day of , 1989, by the City of Eden Prairie, Minnesota, a duly incorporated municipality and the King of Glory Church incorporated. WHEREAS, the King of Glory Church incorporated owns the property known as Lot 17, Block 1 of "The Farm 2nd Addition" in the City of Eden Prairie. WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie wishes to obtain a permanent easement for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a storm sewer over that part of said Lot 17, Block 1 described in the attached "Exhibit A . NOW, THEREFORE, The King of Glory Church agrees to grant to the City of Eden Prairie said permanent easement under the following conditions: 1. That the City of Eden Prairie be fully responsible for the maintenance of said storm sewer; 2. That the City of Eden Prairie provide satisfactory drainage over that part of said Lot 17 affected by the construction of said storm sewer; 3. That the City of Eden Prairie agrees to abandon said easement and relocate said storm sewer in the event of conflict with future development of the property. KING OF GLORY CHURCH, INC. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Ellis W. Olson, President Alan D. Gray, City Engineer STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989. Notary Pub is EXHIBIT A STORM SEWER EASEMENT - KING OF GLORY CHURCH A permanent 20.00 foot easement for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a storm sewer over, under and across Lot I7, Block 1 of the duly recorded "The Farm 2nd Addition" plat, in the City of Eden Prairie, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Said 20.00 foot easement to be measured perpendicular to and 10.00 feet right and left of the center- line of said easement. Said centerline to be described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northerly right-of-way line of Duck Lake Trail, said beginning point being the most Southwesterly corner of said Lot 17, Block 1. Thence North 69 degrees 09 minutes 00 seconds East along the Southwesterly line of Lot 17 a distance of 161.73 to the actual point of beginning of said centerline of said 20.00 foot ease- ment, thence North 66 degrees 44 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 164.65 feet to a point in the Westerly line of said Lot 17, lying 122.60 feet from said most Southwesterly corner of said Lot 17, and there terminating. Said easement to be lengthened or shortened to terminate within said Lot 17. I?O OPUS CORPORATION 4,b , July 12, 1989 Mr. Chris Enger Director, Department of Planning City of Eden Prairie 7b00 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: Datasery Dear Mr. Enger: Opus Corporation requests that its application for rezoning and amendment to the existing Development Agreement for the Datasery corporate headquarters property at 12125 Technology Drive be withdrawn from any further consideration by the City. Opus Corporation intends to pursue alternative development opportunities on the 7.4 acre undeveloped parcel (Lot 2) at an appropriate time in the near future. Sincerely, I., Robert A. Worthington, AlCP Executive Director Governmental Affairs RAWJkk DataSery CITY EDEN F HENNEPINOCOUNTY,PRAIRIE MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-168 A RESOLUTION DENYING SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE #40-88-PUD-11-88 FOR THE PROPOSED CRESCENT RIDGE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 40-88-PUD-11-88, authorizing first reading of a rezoning of property for the amendment to the DataSery development proposed by Opus Corporation, did receive first reading by the City Council at a regular meeting on September 6, 1988; and; WHEREAS, Opus Corporation has not, since that date, completed the necessary steps for finalizing the amendment to the DataSery development as was reviewed by the City at the time of first reading; and, WHEREAS, Opus Corporation has requested withdrawal of the request at this time; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDF.N PRAIRIE, that second reading of Ordinance #40-88-PUD-11-88 is hereby denied and that the attendant request for Preliminary Plat of the DataSery amendment by Opus Corporation, is also hereby denied. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 1, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk I�IU Preserve South CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA DRDINANCE NO. 17-89-PUD-4-89 AN DRDINANCE OF THE CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZDNING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANDTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADDPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMDNG DTHER THINGS, CDNTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Sectremoved from on the 2. That action was duly initiated that the theRural DistrictandbeplacedinthePlanne proposing a - dUnitDevelopment48g- C-Reg-Ser District (hereinafter "PUD 4-89-C-Reg-Ser." Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of August 1, 1989, entered into between Lariat Companies, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement"). Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD 4-89-C- Reg-Ser, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUO 4-89-C-Reg-Ser is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD 4-89-C-Reg-Ser is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code, that are contained in PUD 4-89-C-Reg-Ser, are justified by the design of the development described therein. 0. PUD 4-89-C-Reg-Ser is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is, removed from the Rural District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 4-89-C-Reg-Ser District, and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. /71/ Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 6th day of June, 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1st day of August, 1989. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City C erk Gary 0. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of EXHIBIT A P.U.D. CONCEPT AMENDMENT & DISTRICT REVIEW Lots I and 2, Block 1, Flaherty First Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Outlot E, The Preserve Commercial Park South, Hennepin County, Minnesota PRELIMINARY PLAT Outlot E, The Preserve Commercial Park South, Hennepin County, Minnesota ZONING FROM RURAL TO C-REG-SER & GUIOE PLAN CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL & OPEN SSPACE TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL All that part of OUTLDT E, THE PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK SOUTH, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said OUTLOT E; thence on an assumed bearing South 01 degrees 00 minutes 24 seconds West, along the easterly line of said OUTLOT E for 585.11 feet; thence North 89 degrees 57 minutes 58 seconds West for 531.02 feet; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 02 seconas East for 250.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 58 seconds East for 120.00 feet; thence easterly, northeasterly and northerly for 188.50 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the northwest, radius I2D.00 feet and central angle 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 02 seconds East, along tangent to said curve for 217.22 feet to the northerly line of said OUTLOT E; thence easterly along said northerly line to the point of beginning. All that part of OUTLOT E, THE PRESERVE COMMERCIAL PARK SOUTH, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the northwest corner of said OUTLOT E; thence on an assumed bearing South 38 degrees 51 minutes 30 seconds West, along the westerly line of said OUTLOT E for 286.61 feet; thence South 73 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West along said westerly line for 337.32 feet; thence South 51 degrees 53 minutes 23 seconds West, along said westerly line for 115.00 feet; thence South 01 degrees 07 minutes 23 seconds West along said westerly line for 2B5.94 feet; thence South 89 degrees 57 minutes 58 seconds East for 324.70 feet; thence North 26 degrees 10 minutes 52 seconds East for 141.05 feet; thence North 09 degrees 21 minutes 13 seconds West for 152.48 feet; thence North 15 degrees 05 minutes 27 seconds East for 39.88 feet; thence North 38 degrees 5I minutes 30 seconds East for 429.39 feet to the northerly line of said OUTLOT E; thence westerly along said northerly line to the point of boainnino. /715 Preservt South DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of , 1989, by Lariat Companies, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the CITY DF EDEN PRAIRIE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City:" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Developer has applied to City for Planned Unit Development Concept Amendment to the overall Preserve Commercial Park South Planned Unit Development on approximately 18 acres, Planned Unit Development District Review on approximately 18 acres, with waivers, Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial and Dpen Space to Regional Commercial on 9.07 acres, Zoning District Change from Rural to Commercial-Regional-Service on 9.07 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 13 acres into two lots for construction of a theater complex, all said 18 acres situated in Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, more fully described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and said acreage hereinafter referred to as "the property;" NOW, THEREFDRE, in consideration of the City adopting Ordinance #17-89-PUD- 4-89 Developer covenants and agrees to construction upon, development, and maintenance of said property as follows: 1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the materials revised and dated June 1, 1989, reviewed and approved by the City Council on June 6, 1989, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. Developer shall not develop, construct upon, or maintain the property in any other respect or manner than provided herein. 2. Developer covenants and agrees to the performance and observance by Developer at such times and in such manner as provided therein of all of the terms, covenants, agreements, and conditions set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3. Concurrent with, and as part of, the final plat for the property, Developer agrees to provide the following to the City: A. A drainage and utility easement over the pond located on Lots 1 and 2 of the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. B. A drainage and utility easement over Upper Eden Lake located on Lots 1 and 2 of the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. C. A conservation easement for preservation and trail purposes, generally located over the pond, over the north end of Upper Eden Lake, over the south 60 ft. of Lot 1, and over the south 30 ft. of Lot 2, of the property, consisting of approximately 3.78 acres, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. D. A 20 ft. wide utility easement across the full east-west dimension of Lot 1, the centerline of which shall be located 140 ft. north of the south line of said Lot 1, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 4. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of plans for streets, sanitary sewer, water, irrigation system, storm sewer, and erosion control for the property. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer shall construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above in said plans, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with Exhibit C, attached hereto. 5. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, or release of any permit for building on the property, Developer agrees to enter into a special assessment agreement for the upgrading of Medcom Boulevard to provide public street access and utilities to the property. 6. Prior to release by the City of the final plat for the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Attorney, and to obtain the City Attorney's approval of the following: A. A cross parking agreement which provides that Lot 1 shall be allowed the use of 127 proof-of-parking stalls to be constructed on Lot 2, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. B. A cross access agreement from Lot 2 to Lot 1 on the property, allowing for public access to said Lot 1 from Medcom Boulevard, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property Developer agrees to file said agreements on the property at Hennepin County and to provide proof of filing to the City. 1716 7. Developer and City acknowledge that the initial grade of Medcom Boulevard, which is currently planned to be a dead-end street, will not be the same as the final grade of Medcom Boulevard at such time as Medcom Boulevard is extended to the east. Therefore, concurrent with, and as part of the grading to be completed on the property, Developer agrees that the initial grade of that portion of the property adjacent to Medcom Boulevard, as temporarily dead-ended, shall be completed such that the initial grade of the property will match the initial grade of Medcom Boulevard as temporarily dead-ended. Developer further agrees that, at such time as Medcom Boulevard is extended to the east, Developer shall be responsible for adjustment of the final grade on the property to match the adjusted final grade of Medcom Boulevard when said road is extended to the east. Developer acknowledges that the work involved to match the adjusted final grade of extended Medcom Boulevard shall include revision of the retaining wall system in order that it also shall transition into the adjusted final grade of extended Medcom Boulevard. B. Developer and City acknowledge that the 127 proof-of-parking spaces proposed for Lot 2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, are designated for use by the theater complex and that said proof-of- parking spaces are not required to be constructed at this time. However, said proof-of-parking spaces may be required to be constructed in the future, if it is determined by City, in its sole discretion, that it is necessary. At such time as City, in its sole discretion, may determine that it is necessary for all, or a portion of, said 127 proof-of-parking spaces to be constructed in order to accommodate the theater use, the following events shall occur: A. City shall notify Developer in writing of the need to construct all, or a portion of, said 127 proof-of-parking spaces based on City's determination of such need demonstrated by activity from the property. B. Within six (6) months of receipt of written notice from City, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, all, or a portion of, said 127 proof-of-parking spaces, as determined by City, on said Lot 2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 9. Concurrent with street and utility construction on the property, Developer agrees to grade a ten-foot wide pad along the east side of the driveway access to Medcom Boulevard, along the west side of the pond, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, for purposes of a installation of a public trail in the future. City agrees to be responsible for completion of construction of the trail beyond the grading of the trail to be completed by Developer as discussed above. /C/(a 10. Developer shall notify the City and the Watershed District 48 hours prior to any grading, tree removal, or tree cutting on the property. 11. Prior to issuance of any building permit upon the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of: A. An overall signage plan which complies with City Code requirements, depicting color, size, letter type, and location of all signs to be utilized on and for the property. B. Samples of exterior materials to be implemented on the structure, including color and texture of said materials. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, those materials and improvements listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C, attached hereto. 12. Developer has submitted to the City, and obtained City's approval of a plan for screening of mechanical equipment on the property. Security to guarantee said screening shall be included with that provided for the landscaping on the property, per City Code requirements. If, after completion of construction ' of said mechanical equipment screening, it is determined by City, in its sole discretion, that the proposed screening does not meet the City Code requirements to screen said equipment from public streets and differing, adjacent uses, then City shall notify Developer and Developer shall take corrective action to revise the mechanical equipment screening to meet Code requirements. Developer acknowledges that City will not release the security provided until any such corrective measures are satisfactorily completed by Developer. 13. Developer and City acknowledge that no construction shall take place on Lot 2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, at this time, except for driveway access from Medcom Boulevard to service the property. Construction of proof-of-parking spaces may take place in the future, in accordance with item #8, above. At such time as Developer desires to construct anything on said Lot 2, other than the driveway access to Medcom Boulevard and the proof- of-parking spaces discussed above, Developer agrees to return to the City with an appropriate development application for review of said development in accordance with applicable procedures in effect at that time. Developer agrees that the land use designed for said Lot 2 shall include the following: A. Provision for access to the lands to the south and west of said Lot 2. B. A compatible use for the property which will not interfere with the use of the 127 parking spaces by the theater on Lot 1 during the P. M. Peak Hour, i.e. an office building. C. Developer and City acknowledge that the property lies within the Major Center Area of the City and that development of the property is subject to the findings of the 1985 BRW Traffic Study for the Major Center Area. Developer agrees, therefore, to limit the P. M. Peak Hour Trip Generation on the property to that which is available according to the 1985 BRW Traffic Study for that portion of the Major Center Area, or a total of 269 trips for the overall Preserve South development. Developer acknowledges that the number of trips which will be generated by the theater use on Lot 1 as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, will be 192 trips. Developer agrees that the use, and, therefore, the trip generation total from Lot 2 of the property shall be limited to a total of 77 P. M. Peak Hour trips, for a total of 269 trips for all of the property. Developer acknowledges that the above conditions are in addition to all requirements and conditions of the City Code. 14. As part of Planned Unit Development ►4-89, City herein grants waivers to the provisions and requirements of Chapter 11, Zoning, of the City Code: A. Off-site parking for 127 spaces on Lot 2, to be utilized by the theater complex on Lot 1, of the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. /7m !D Preserve South CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-169 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF OROINANCE 17-89-PUD-4-89 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 17-89-PUD-4-B9 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 1st day of August, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Ordinance No. 17-89-PUD-4-89, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil, or six-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 17-B9-PUD-4-89 shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 1, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk /1I9 Preserve South CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA OROINANCE NO. 17-89-PUO-4-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LANO FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT ANO PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENOING THE LEGAL OESCRIPTIONS OF LANO IN EACH DISTRICT, AND AOOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY COOE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY CDUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows rezoning of land located east of Highway #169, south of Medcom Boulevard, from the Rural District to the PUD-4-89-C- Reg-Ser District, subject to the terms and conditions of a developer's agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Oate: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John D. Frane /s/Gary 0. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the _ day of , 1989. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) Eden Square CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 5-89-PUD-3-89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LAND FROM ONE ZONING DISTRICT AND PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS OF LAND IN EACH DISTRICT, AND, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 11.99 WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1. That the land which is the subject of this Ordinance (hereinafter, the "land") is legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 2. That action was duly initiated proposing that the land be amended within the C-Reg-Ser District and be placed in the Planned Unit Development 3-89-C-Reg-Ser District (hereinafter "PUD 3-89-C-Reg-Ser." Section 3. The land shall be subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Developer's Agreement dated as of November 7, 1988, entered into between Commercial Partners, Inc., and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Developer's Agreement") and that certain Supplement to Developer's Agreement entered into between The Eden Square General Partnership, and the City of Eden Prairie (hereinafter "Supplement"). Developer's Agreement contains the terms and conditions of PUD 3-89-C-Reg-Ser, and are hereby made a part hereof. Section 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. PUD 3-89-C-Reg-Ser is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the City. B. PUD 3-89-C-Reg-Ser is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The exceptions to the standard requirements of Chapters 11 and 12 of the City Code, that are contained in PUD 3-89-C-Reg-Ser, are justified by the design of the development described therein. D. PUD 3-89-C-Reg-Ser is of sufficient size, composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation is feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. Section 5. The proposal is hereby adopted and the land shall be, and hereby is, amended within the C-Reg-Ser District and shall be included hereafter in the Planned Unit Development 3-89-C-Reg-Ser District, and the legal descriptions of land in each district referred to in City Code Section 11.03, subdivision 1, subparagraph B, shall be and are amended accordingly. Section 6. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and / '2/ Section 11.99 entitled "Violation a Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 7. This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 2nd day of May, 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the 1st day of August, 1989. ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Gary D. Peterson, Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of /7aa EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION P.U.D. Amendment Review and P.U.D. District Review. Lot 2, Block 1; EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 2ND ADDITION. Lots 1, 2, Block 1; EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 3RD ADDITION. Preliminary Plat. Lots 1, 2, Block 1; EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 2ND ADDITION. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 1; EDEN PRAIRIE CENTER 3RD ADDITION. J2 i a3 Eden Square Shopping Center Amendment SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT This Supplement to Developer's Agreement made and entered into as of this day of , 1989, by and between Eden Square General Partnership, a Minnesota general partnership, transferees of the property gas described in the developer's agreement between Commercial Partners, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and the City of Eden Prairie, for Eden Square Shopping Center, dated November 7, 1988, and the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City;" WHEREAS, Commercial Partners, Inc., and City made and entered into a Developer's Agreement, dated November 7, 1988, for Eden Square Shopping Center (the "Developer's Agreement") and Eden Square General Partnership has succeeded to all of the rights and interests in the lands included within Eden Square Shopping Center, previously owned by Commercial Partners, Inc.; and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend said agreement for the property being as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of City adopting Ordinance p5-89-PUD-3-89, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The Developer's Agreement shall be and hereby is supplemented and amended in the following respects: A. Paragraph 1. shall be amended to read as follows: "1. Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the revised material dated April 27, 1989, reviewed and approved as amended by the City Council on May 2, 1989, and attached hereto as Exhibit 8, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein." B. Paragraph 4. shall be deleted; Paragraph 5. shall be renumbered as Paragraph 4. C. There shall be added paragraphs 5. - 9. as follows: "5. With respect to the two fast food restaurants to be constructed on the property, Developer agrees that no building permit will be requested by Developer, nor issued by City, for either of the fast food restaurants until such time as Developer has begun construction on the two retail buildings on the property, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer also acknowledges that, prior to issuance of any building permit for either fast food structure, Developer shall submit to the City, and obtain the City's approval of site and building plans for said structures. Developer agrees to comply with all submission and City Code requirements for site plan review for both fast food structures. Developer further agrees that the archi- tectural, color, signage, and design details for both structures shall comply with the design framework for the property as detailed in Exhibit B, attached hereto, and made a part hereof. City acknowledges that said fast food site plans may be submitted individually, if preferred by Developer. "6. Prior to issuance by City of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the City Engineer, and to obtain the City Engineer's approval of: A. A cross-access, cross-parking agreement with the owners of the "Sears" parking lot parcel for purposes of providing additional parking for the uses on the property. B. Proof of arrangements for extension of and billing for utilities with the owners of the Eden Prairie Shopping Center. Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, those agreements and arrangements listed above, as approved by the City Engineer. "7. Prior to issuance by City of any building permit on the property, Developer agrees to submit to the Director of Planning, and to obtain the Director's approval of: A. Detailed plans for screening of all mechanical equipment on the property. Developer acknowledges that, should the proposed parapet wall above the roof line be inadequate for such screening purposes, Developer shall revise and reconstruct adequate I� screening for said mechanical equipment in accordance with City Code requirements. B. A revised landscape/screening plan which provides: 1) An eight-foot high architectural brick screen wall along the backside of Building #2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, for purposes of screening parking. 2) Additional shade trees to be located between the Firestone building and Building #2, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 3) Additional landscaping for purposes of screening parking along the Franlo Road entrance to the property, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 4) Additional heavy conifer plantings and mass shrub plantings along Prairie Center Drive and along Highway #169 for purposes of screening parking, as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. 5) Plans for an irrigation system to maintain the landscaping and screening on the property. C. A signage plan for the property which provides the following: 1) Details which indicate individual signage for individual tenants to be located in the architecturally defined signage band area as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Said details shall provide that the lettering for individual signage which is located in the signage band shall be back- lit lettering. 2) Details for the three pylon signs for the property. Said details shall provide that the two 36 sq. ft. pylon signs allowed by the Planned Unit Development #3-89 waiver in item #9.C. below, each identifying a fast food restaurant shall be located as far apart from each other along the Highway #169 frontage as possible. Further said details shall provide that the 80 sq. ft. pylon sign identifying the project he located on Prairie Center Drive. 3) Clear indication that no signage shall be /7a4 permitted on the west walls of the fast-food structures in accordance with the signage discussed in item 2), above, allowed through Planned Unit Development #3-89. 4) Details for the three monument signs in the locations as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto, allowed by the Planned Unit Development #3-89 waiver in item #9.8., below. Said monument signs shall be for advertisement of the project, only, and shall not be used by any tenant, or group of tenants, on the property. D. A detailed lighting plan for the property which provides that all lighting poles and fixtures on the property are identical. Upon approval by the Director of Planning of said plans, Developer agrees to implement, or cause to be implemented, those plans and materials listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C of the Developer's Agreement. "B. Concurrent with utility extension and construction on the property, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, eight-foot wide bituminous trails along Prairie Center Drive and along Highway #169 and five-foot wide concrete sidewalks along Franlo Road, along the private interior roadway, and on the interior of the property connecting the retail buildings and fast food structures on the property, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. The exact location of said sidewalks and trails shall be as determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. Upon approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources, Developer agrees to constuct said trails as approved by the City Engineer and Director, in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C of the Developer's Agreement. "9. As part of the Planned Unit Development #3-89, City hereby grants the following waivers from the requirements of Chapter 11, Zoning, for the property: A. Parking for the property shall be allowed off-site on the "Sears" parking lot, located to the north of the property, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the cross-access, cross-parking agreement described in Item #6.A., above. B. Three monument signs shall be allowed, advertising the project, only, not advertising any tenant, or group of tenants. « t C. Two pylon signs shall be allowed on the Highway #169 frontage, each being allowed at 36 sq. ft. in size and 20 ft. in height." 2. Eden Square General Partnership agrees to all of the terms and conditions and accepts the obligations of the "Developer" under the Developer's Agreement, as amended and supplemented herein. /11,a7 Eden Square CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-170 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE 5-89-PUD-3-89 AND ORDERING THE PUBLICATION OF SAID SUMMARY WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5-89-PUD-3-B9 was adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the 1st day of August, 1989; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE: A. That the text of the summary of Drdinance No. 5-89-PUD-3-89, which is attached hereto, is approved, and the City Council finds that said text clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of said ordinance. B. That said text shall be published once in the Eden Prairie News in a body type no smaller than non-pareil, or six-point type, as defined in Minn. Stat. sec. 331.07. C. That a printed copy of the Ordinance shall be made available for inspection by any person during regular office hours at the office of the City Clerk and a copy of the entire text of the Ordinance shall be posted in the City Hall. D. That Ordinance No. 5-89-PUD-3-8g shall be recorded in the ordinance book, along with proof of publication required by paragraph B herein, within 20 days after said publication. ADOPTED by the City Council on August 1, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk Eden Square CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA OROINANCE NO. 5-89-PUO-3-89 AN OROINANCE OF THE CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, REMOVING CERTAIN LANO FROM ONE ZONING OISTRICT ANO PLACING IT IN ANOTHER, AMENOING THE LEGAL OESCRIPTIONS OF LANO IN EACH OISTRICT, ANO AOOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY COOE CHAPTER 1 ANO SECTION 11.99, WHICH, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EOEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA, OROAINS: Summary: This Ordinance allows amendment of the zoning of land located at the northeast corner of Highway ii169 and Prairie Center Orive within the C-Reg-Ser Oistrict to the PUO-3-89-C-Reg-Ser Oistrict, subject to the terms and conditions of a Oeveloper's Agreement and Supplement to Developer's Agreement. Exhibit A, included with this Ordinance, gives the full legal description of this property. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication. ATTEST: /s/John 0. Frane is/Gary 0. Peterson City Clerk Mayor PUBLISHED in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1989. (A full copy of the text of this Ordinance is available from the City Clerk.) /g60 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. B9-173 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the following improvement: I.C. 52-169 (STREET NAME AND TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS) bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law. Those bids received are shown on the attached Summary of Bids; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends award of Contract to EARL F. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES as the lowest responsible bidder. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter in a Contract with EARL F. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES in the name of the City of Eden Prairie in the amount of $34,417.97 in accordance with the plans and specifications thereof approved by the Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on AUGUST 1, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, City Clerk /8 3 AGREEMENT REGARDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS S.A.A. 89-07 THIS IS AN AGREEMENT MADE THIS AO DAY DE itr 1989, between the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, (the "City") and Elim Care, Inc., a Minnesota general corporation (the "Owner"). A. The Owner holds legal and equitable title to property described as Lot 1, Block I. North Bay of Timber_Lakes 3rd _Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which property is the subject of this Agreement and i hereinafter referred to as the "Property". B. The Owner desires to develop the Property in such a manner that will require the construction of an additional 452 feet of 8-foot bike path along the easterly border of the Property within Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 4 Right-of-way (all of which is hereafter referred to as the "Improvements"). C. The parties hereto desire to enter into an Agreement concerning the financing of the construction of the Improvements all of which will inure to the benefit of the Property. AGREEMENTS IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: 1. The Owner consents to the levying of assessments against the Property for the construction of the Improvements. 2. The Owner acknowledge that the Improvements referred to herein will be part of a larger construction project involving CSAH No. 4 as it passes the Property as well as other land. The City was presented a supplement to Agreement No. PW 70-49-87 by Hennepin County for the construction of the bike path. The estimated construction cost of the bike path based on actual bid prices is $2,072.38. With an additional 15% for 1 engineering and inspection costs, the total project cost is $2,383.24. The owner has the option of paying the $2,383.24 by August 1, 1989 in order to avoid the assessment process. Should the Owner fail to pay this amount by the date specified, an assessment levy will occur by the Fall of 1989. 3. For purposes of determining the amount of the assessment, the cost of the Improvements shall include, the $2,383.24, as previously stated, plus a 9% administrative fee and interest on the balance at a rate to be determined at the time of assessments. 4. The City's assessment records for the Property will show the assessment as a "pending assessment" until levied. 5. The Owner waives notice of any assessment hearing to be held at which hearing or hearings the assessment is to be considered y the City Council and thereafter approved and levied. 6. The Owner concurs that the benefit to the Property by virtue of ( the Improvements to be constructed exceeds the amount of the assessment to be levied against the Property. The Owner waives all rights it has by virtue of Minnesota Statute 429.081 or otherwise to challenge the amount or validity of the assessments, or the procedures used by the City in apportioning the assessments and hereby releases the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all liability related to or arising out of the imposition or levying of the assessments. ELIM CARE, INC. CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE p A Minnesota Municipal Corporation G,BY: ,2.<-PG-�„, .mil BY: Its Gary D. Peterson � Its Mayor BY: Q 'v"" 4 t^.f y ''. G'/t 'nq BY: Its �eclopr Carl J. Jullie Its City Manager 2 /7, 3 • d. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1989, by Gary D. Peterson, the Mayor and Carl J. Jullie, the City Manager of the City of Eden Prairie, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY DF/k.v..vei4 ) c/a foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisn ..", ;A day of ca/y , 1989, by - - •`=� �'.' Po > T the #1'L �,,,. a I Pvec;;Je.f and PPr.�.tc{'0.104.j,,,,, ,✓.1 kie/ t of Elim Care, Incorporated, a Minnesota general partnership, in behalf of the partnership. f : ;ALD:,1.. 7i73D 4 MEINLriN CCjNTY i .•wnn IL........inn......n Nov.19,w,o / Notary Pub is r 3 /73 VV'eishCompanies July 26, 1989 Mayor & Council Members City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mayor & Council Members: On behalf of the Equitable Life Insurance Company, this letter is to request an extension for a period of one year for the Edenvale Business Center, Phase II. As you will recall, the approvals for the Phase II project were granted approximately two years ago and they consist of a 3-building complex totalling approximately 172,000 square feet. Equitable i still intends to proceed with the project, but the final approval is not expected for some time. Your cooperation would be appreciated in regard to this extension. Sincerely, _ E. Paul Dunn Vice President EPD/dcm /7S. REVISED CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 i TO CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 52-134 PRAIRIE CENTER DRIVE TRAFFIC SIGNALS CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA Revised January, 1987 BRW, Inc. 700 Third Street South Minneapolis, MN 554I5 The following work shall be added by contract amendment to this project: SECTION "A" (Mn/DOT 1904 - Force Account) Repair of Unusable Existing Conduit at Prairie Center Drive and Viking Drive Additions Al. Labor Costs Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 4 1. Foreman Electrician Hours 6.0 $27.65 $I65.90 2. Journeyman Electrician Hours 6.0 25.63 153.78 3. Parts Runner Hours 2.0 12.00 24.00 Labor Subtotal $343.68 Add 49% 168.40 LABOR GRAND TOTAL $512.OB A2. Material Costs Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 4. 3" RSC LF 2.5 $ 4.08 $ 10.20 5. 3" RSWC Solid Connector EA 1.0 25.82 25.82 6. 3" RS H.D. Solid EA 1.0 29.22 29.22 Connector 7. 28" Traffic Cones EA 9.0 0.50 4.50 8. Bituminous Cold Mix Ton I.1 30.00 33.00 Material Subtotal $IO2.74 6% MN Sales Tax 6.16 Add 15% 15.41 MATERIAL, GRAND TOTAL $124.31 1: A3. Equipment Costs ( Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 9. Pickup Truck Hours 7.0 $ 6.00 $ 42.00 10. Compressor Hours 2.0 9.00 18.00 11. 90 lb. Harmer Hours 2.0 4.50 9.00 12. Kelley Tamper Hours 1.0 5.00 5.00 13. Misc. Hand Tools Hours 6.0 3.50 21.00 14. H.D. Generator Hours 1.0 6.00 6.00 15. Power Band Saw Hours 1.0 3.00 3.00 EQUIPMENT GRAND TOTAL $ 104.00 TOTAL ADDITIONS SECTION "A" $ 740.39 SECTION "B" Additions Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount I. 3" RSC LF 25.0 $ 12.50 $ 312.50 2. 4" RSC LF 25.0 14.50 362.50 3. Handhole EA 2.0 350.00 700.00 TOTAL ADDITIONS SECTION "B" $1,375.00 Deductions Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1.0 Handhole EA 3 $350.00 $1,050.00 TOTAL DEDUCTIONS SECTION "B" $1,050.00 SECTION "C" Additional Signs Item No. Item Unit Quantity Unit Price Amount 1. High Intensity EA 9.0 $ 96.00 $ 864.00 W3-3 Signs TOTAL ADDITIONS SECTION "C" $ 864.00 Necessity for Amendment Section "A" Additions: 1. A section of 3" RSC conduit at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Viking Drive installed previously and shown as "existing" on the plans was discovered to be unusable. The conduit run was in place, but had been separated into two pieces joined by a rubber connector. Killmer Electric Company was instructed to repair this conduit run on a Force Account basis. Section "B" Additions: 1. A handhole at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Preserve Boulevard which was believed to be installed and which was shown to be existing on the plans was not in existence. Additional work caused by this situation included the installation of a new handhole and the installation of 25 feet each of 3" RSC and 4" RSC. 2. A handhole at the intersection of Prairie Center Drive and Viking Drive which was previously installed and shown as "existing" on the plans was discovered to be badly damaged and not usable. A new handhole was installed. Section "B" Deductions: 1. At the time of plan preparation, one handhole each was assumed to be needed at the intersections of Prairie Center Drive with Preserve Boulevard, Viking Drive and Valley View Road to be used in connecting the traffic signal control cabinets with the source of power provided by NSP. Further discussions with NSP after the construction project began indicated that these handholes would not be needed and they were deleted from the contract. Section "C" Additions: 1. A total of nine W3-3 (Signal Ahead) signs were indicated to be installed by the Contractor. Killmer Electric Company and its signing subcontractor assumed that these signs would be furnished by the City. The City directed Killmer to supply the signs as an additional item. ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $236,014.5D TOTAL PREVIOUS CONTRACT AMENDMENTS 0.0D SUBTOTAL $236,014.50 TOTAL ADDITIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT ND. 4 (Sections A-C) 2,979,39 SUBTOTAL $238,993.89 TOTAL DEDUCTIONS CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 4 1,050.00 CONTRACT AMOUNT TO DATE $237,943.89 /?3$ CONTRACTOR Killmer Electric Company, Inc. Title Date ENGINEER BRW, Inc. Title 5r• Tratt$por4g4ieK En9ivxeei- Date "71 Z 5/89 EDEN PRAIRIE City Engineer Date /7�c Valley Gate South SUPPLEMENT TO DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT This Supplement to Developer's Agreement made and entered into as of this day of , 1989, by and between Sigmund Helle, dba THE HELLE GROUP, hereinafter referred to as "Developer," and the City of Eden Prairie, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City;" WHEREAS, Developer owns a portion of the property as described in the developer's agreement between Herliev Helle and Borghild Helle and the City of Eden Prairie for Norseman 6th Addition, dated May 15, 1984, hereinafter referred to as "the 1984 Agreement;" and, WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend said agreement for a portion of the property referred to in said agreement, that portion of the property being as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; NOW, THEREFDRE, it is agreed by and between the parties thereto as follows: 1. The Developer's Agreement shall be and hereby is supplemented and amended in the following respects: A. Paragraph 1. shall be amended to read as follows: Developer shall develop the property in conformance with the revised material dated July 26, 1989, reviewed and approved as amended by the City Council on May 3, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit B, subject to such changes and modifications as provided herein. B. There shall be added paragraphs 7. - 12. as follows: 7. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer shall submit to the City Engineer, and obtain the City Engineer's approval of detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, sanitary sewer, irrigation system, and water plans for the property. , y0 Upon approval by the City Engineer, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above, as approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with the conditions of Exhibit C of the 1984 Agreement for the property and in accordance with City Code requirements. 8. Developer has agreed to screen all visible rooftop mechanical equipment from all public roadways and differing land uses in accordance with the City Code requirements and has supplied plans therefor as part of Exhibit B. Developer agrees to construct said screening elements, as approved by the City, concurrent with building construction on the property. 9. Developer has agreed to incorporate an effective screening berm along both road frontages, to be supplemented either through use of boulders, or timber walls, all as depicted in Exhibit B, attached hereto. Developer agrees to construct said berming in accordance with the City Code requirements, as approved by the City, concurrent with grading on the property. 10. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer shall submit to the Director of Planning, and obtain the Director's approval of: A. Samples of exterior building materials. B. Detailed plans for lighting. C. Detailed plans for signage. Upon approval by the Director of Planning, Developer's agree construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above, as approved by the Director of Planning, in accordance with City Code requirements and in accordance with the terms and conditions of Exhibit C of the 1984 Agreement. 11. Prior to issuance of any building permit on the property, Developer shall submit to the Chief Building Official, and obtain the Chief Building Official's approval of detailed plans for retailing walls which accurately demonstrate proposed construction design and height specifications. Upon approval by the Chief Building Official, Developer agrees to construct, or cause to be constructed, those improvements listed above, as approved by the Chief Building Official, in accordance with City requirements. 12. Concurrent with building construction on the property, Developer agrees to construct a five-foot wide, five-inch thick concrete sidewalk along the east side of Golden Triangle Drive, in accordance with City specifications. I8U1 2. Sigmund Helle, dba THE HELLE GROUP, hereby agrees to all of the terms and conditions and accepts the obligations of the "Developers" under the 1984 Agreement, as amended and supplemented herein. /Z42s EXHIBIT A Legal Description Lot 2, Block 1, HORSEMAN 6TH ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. �4 ' RESOLUTION EXPRESSING PRELIMINARY INTENT TO ISSUE OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 462C FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECT WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 88-273 the City Council of Eden Prairie, Minnesota (the "City"), subject to the terms of such resolution, confirmed its preliminary approval of the issuance of City bonds or notes pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462C (the "Act") in the approximate aggregate face amount of $5,750,000 (the "Original Amount") to finance the acquisition, construction and installation of an approximately 112 unit multifamily housing rental project (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, Prairie Village Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the "Developer") has requested that the City increase the Original Amount to $6,540,000. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie as follows: 1. The City Council hereby grants its preliminary approval and expresses the preliminary intention of the City to issue pursuant to the Act revenue obligations (the "Bonds") in a maximum principal amount not to exceed $6,540,000, for the purpose of financing the acquisition, construction and installation of the Project and related costs; subject to the City, the Developer and purchasers of the Bonds reaching definitive agreement on the provisions thereof; provided, however, that such Bonds shall be issued on or before December 2, 1989. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision hereof, the City shall not be legally obligated hereby to issue the Bonds in any amount and the City may, in its sole discretion, determine at any time to not issue the Bonds. Passed and approved this 1st day of August, 1989. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk VAC 89-09 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 89-166 VACATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN RIDGEWOOD WEST WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has certain right-of-way and drainage and utility easements described as follows: The right-of-way for Bertly Court (a.k.a. Bently Court) as dedicated in the record plat of Ridgewood West, and Drainage and utility easements as platted on Lots 52 through 62 inclusive, Block 1, Ridgewood West, Said plat of Ridgewood West is recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on AUGUST 1, 1989, after due notice was published and posted as required by law; WHEREAS, it has been determined that the said right-of-way and drainage and utility easements are not necessary and have no interest to the public, therefore, should be vacated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: 1. Said right-of-way and drainage and utility easements as above described are hereby vacated. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare a Notice of Completion of the proceedings in accordance with M.S.A. 412.851. ADOPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on AUGUST 1, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: SEAL John D. Frane, Clerk 07 S STAFF REPORT 1, TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: July 21, 1989 PROJECT: Marcus Funeral Home LOCATION: Southwest Corner of Terrey Pine Drive and County Road #4 APPLICANT: Marcus Corporation FEE OWNER: Connie Anderson REQUEST: 1. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial on 0.95 acres. 2. Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to Community Commercial on 0.95 acres with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. 3. Site Plan Review on 0.95 acres. 4. Preliminary Plat of 0.95 acres into one lot. I iymu:sa-.. Background �, +n�.—_ r— i.�,'- Background t '..\ Rid= - s - This site is currently guided Low [ ' - ! �4 11T1-T-f 11 °`t itr. Density Residential and zoned RM- f %, •' R1�.2$ WAD t • k� 2.5. The adjacent property to the 5 C-COM south and west is ��� DFC guided for Medium P�: Density Residential while the property to the north is guided for '` /: h' Dffice. The property to the east is RM-2.5 "�_e 11% I— , .. _ " guided Industrial. Specific land c• uses and zoning districts include i •RM'6.5 the Elim Shores senior housing C HWY project, zoned RM-2.5 to the south; ., T I_2 ���-GEf Eden Prairie Family Physicians, -- f zoned Office to the north; Mitchell PROPOSED SITE "• ,- --- i Lake Estates, zoned RM-6.5 to the !G; '' : • I f'1 west; and vacant property, zoned I-2 ` ,.._'','..'?;-',1; to the east. R ;�2 • The current proposal is to develop a ' 5,700 square foot funeral home on a RM-fa ..j'i , F 0.95 acre site. This request 1` , �:� � • requires a Comprehensive Guide Plan i' `�.; • 'r••'2: . !,._ Change from Low Density Residential . 'I'' ! • ,n .W'L ..•7' CiCOM to Community Commercial and a Zoning 4 :,• District Change from RM-2.5 to ' ie:$ ‘),:".C.Community Commercial. AREA LOCATION MAP /?tIf • Marcus Funeral Home 2 July 21, 1989 (. Comprehensive Guide Plan Change/Land Use The proposed funeral home is being considered as Community Commercial land use because it is a business which provides a service for the entire City. The purpose of the Community Commercial guide plan designation and zoning district is to provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and personal service establishments patronized primarily by residents in the immediate community area. The district also permits the development of community shopping centers in the appropriate locations as shown on the guide plan according to the standards that minimize adverse impacts on the adjoining residential land use. The Commission must decide whether the use of this site for a funeral home is of an appropriate size and in an appropriate location which minimizes the adverse impact on the adjoining residential neighborhood. Site Plan/Preliminary Plat The minimum requirements in the Community Commercial Zoning District include a lot size of 5 acres and a lot width and depth of 300 feet. Setbacks include a 35 foot front yard setback, 20 feet on each side, and a 20 foot rear yard setback. The plat consists of 0.95 acres with a width of 165 feet and a depth of 245 feet. Variances will be required for lot size, lot width, and lot depth. The building meets the minimum required setbacks of the zoning district. The development proposal involves the construction of approximately 5,700 square feet in two levels for the proposed funeral home, and the renovation of the existing home for use by the caretakers. In the Community Commercial Zoning District, a Base Area Ratio (B.A.R.) of 20% and a Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) of 40% is allowed. The proposal, including the existing home, has a B.A.R. of 11% and a F.A.R. of 18.3%. Based upon a parking requirement of one space per every three seats in the chapel and a 54 car parking lot, 162 seats could be placed within building. The proponent has indicated that approximately 100 seats would actually be used. If the building use changed to 100% retail or office, a total of 55 spaces and 38 spaces would be required, respectively. Grading/Utilities Elevations on-site range from approximately 900 in the northeast corner of the site to approximately 890 on the south property line. The majority of the site will be graded in order to allow for the construction of the parking areas and the building pad. Approximately 11 feet of cut for the new building is required while any fill will be used for berming adjacent the roadways. Utilities are available to connections made to an existing 8-inch water line and an 8-inch sanitary sewer line located within Terrey Pine Drive. A detailed storm water run-off plan shall be submitted for review by the City and the County, due to the proposed connection to the Hennepin County storm water system within County Road #4. Landscaping Based on a total of 120 caliper inches of significant trees on-site, the proposal indicates a loss of 94 caliper inches. Because the tree loss exceeds 75%, the Tree Preservation Policy requires 100% replacement or 94 caliper inches. In addition, 24 caliper inches are required for the building for a total of 118 caliper inches. The Marcus Funeral Home 3 July 21, 1989 ( landscape plan depicts a total of 57.5 caliper inches. In order to increase the level of screening from the adjacent senior housing project, the proponent shall substitute 8 and 10 foot evergreens along the south property line for the pfitzer which is proposed. In addition, the proponent shall increase the sizes of the overstory trees to a 3 caliper inch minimum. Because the screening of this area is based primarily upon the landscaping, an irrigation system shall be included to help insure the survival of the trees. Architecture The existing single family home on the project site will be renovated as part of the construction of the new 5,700 square foot, two-level funeral home. The plans indicate that the funeral home will be residential in style and have the same roof pitch, windows, siding as the existing home. The primary building materials include facebrick and glass. To add consistency to the project, the facebrick for the funeral home is proposed to match the existing chimney. In order to tzke advantage of existing grades on-site, a two level building has been designed. The basement area will be used primarily for working space and a garage while the upper level contains a chapel, lounge, offices, and other uses associated with a funeral home. Transition In a memo dated June 23, 1989, a study of six communities revealed that funeral homes are allowed as transitional land uses between commercial and residential developments (see Attached). Special requirements identified for lots adjacent residential land uses include increased setbacks and special buffer strips. The key to the development of this property as a commercial site will be it's ability to transition to the adjacent residential development. The property is 0.95 acres in size and is wide enough to allow for the construction of the building and the required parking while meeting the minimum setback requirements. Because of the residential size and style of the building, the required transition would be primarily to the 54 car parking lot. While the transition can be accomplished in many ways including increased setbacks, landscaping, and/or fencing, the size of the site limits the amount of screening which can actually be done. Because of this, Staff is recommending that the plans be revised to depict 8 and 10 foot evergreens and 3 caliper inches of deciduous trees along the south property line. Traffic In the traffic study dated December 7, 1988, it was reported that on days that services are held, the funeral home could generate between 8 and 320 trips per day (if a funeral and visitation services are held on the same day) (See Attached). Average attendance levels for a visitation service is approximately 100 while a funeral service would draw approximately 75 people. Based upon an average vehicle occupancy of 2.5, average trips equal 80 and 60 respectively. These trips are not expected to occur during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic, but would occur over an extended peak period (e.g., the hour after the peak hour). The report concluded that the maximum use of the property for commercial use would generate approximately the same number of trips on a daily basis as the peak day for a funeral home. /GUI Marcus Funeral Home 4 July 21, 1989 These figures were based on the assumption that there would be two chapels within the building with seating capacities of 80 and 100. The proposed plans indicate a seating area of approximately 100 seats. Based upon this figure, it is anticipated that the amount of traffic could be reduced accordingly by approximately 25% to 30%. Pedestrian Systems There is an existing 5 foot concrete sidewalk along Terrey Pine Drive which would be maintained as part of this project. In addition, with the upgrade of County Road #4, the County will build an B foot bituminous path along the left side of County Road #4. Signaqe/Lightinq No plans have been submitted which indicate site lighting or signage. Due to the nature and location of the proposed funeral home, minimal site lighting would be recommended for this project site and include 20 foot downcast luminars. The only signage anticipated would be a business sign located in front of the project site. A detailed lighting and signage plan must be submitted prior to Council review. Concl usions The Planning Commission must decide whether or not the proponents have provided compelling reasons for changing the Comprehensive Guide Plan from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. The Guine Plan Change question is not so much related to the balance of land uses in the community or adding more Community Commercial on a community wide basis in this case, but more of the relationship to the adjoining residential properties. In other words, is the size and location of the proposed Community Commercial use appropriate according to standards that minimize adverse impacts on adjoining residential land use. Infill sites that are not consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan are difficult to develop in most cases because the sites are much smaller than the minimum zoning requirements and there is not enough room on-site to accomodate development and still provide an appropriate transition to the adjoining residential land use. In this situation, since this site does not meet the 5 acre minimum requirement, the transition must rely solely on landscaping since the setbacks to the adjoining residential properties is much smaller than if the site was a 5 acre minimum. It does not appear that there is a way to modify the current proposal to adequately mitigate the neighborhood impacts with the exception of removing the existing home and redesigning the entire project. Staff Recommendations The Planning Staff presents the following alternative courses of action for Commission consideration: 1. If the Planning Commission feels that the development as proposed is not the appropriate use of the property, one option would be to recommend denial of the request since the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change has not been substantiated, the size and use of the property is inappropriate for the location, and the impacts on the adjoining residential neighborhoods are high. /Y4l9 Marcus Funeral Home 5 July 21, 1989 2. If the Planning Commission feels that the proponent has demonstrated a compelling argument for a change to the Comprehensive Guide Plan and are comfortable with the technical aspects of the project, appropriate action would be to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Change from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial on 0.95 acres, Zoning District Change from RM-2.5 to Community Commercial on 0.95 acres, and the Preliminary Plat of 0.95 acres into one lot, and subject to the Staff Report dated July 21,1989, revised plans dated July 21,1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: a. Revise the landscape plan to depict 8 and 10 evergreens and 3 caliper inch deciduous trees along the south property line. An irrigation system will be required to help insure the survival of the trees. b. An overall signage plan shall be submitted depicting size, color, letter type, and location on the project. c. Provide colors and samples of the exterior building materials. d. An overall lighting plan shall be submitted depicting a maximum pole height of 20 feet. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, the proponent shall: a. Submit detailed storm water run-off, erosion control, and utility plans for review by the City Engineer. b. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, proponent shall: a. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance of grading. b. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 4. Apply for and receive variances from the Board of Appeals for lot size, lot width, and lot depth in the Community Commercial zoning district. /`GSO C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner DATE: June 23, 1989 SUBJECT: Mortuaries The following is a summary of the appropriate zoning districts and specific lot requirements for mortuaries within six suburban communities. Bloomington Mortuaries are allowed as a "conditional use" in the Limited Business (B1) District, Retail Business (B2) District, and as a "permitted use" in the Central Business (CB) District. The purpose of the Limited Business District is "to provide areas appropriate for office uses and multiple family uses particularly in transitional situations between business or industrial zones and residential districts." In addition to meeting the performance standards of each particular zoning district, the requirements for a conditional use permit are as follows: 1. That the proposed use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. That the proposed use is not in conflict with an adopted district plan for the area. 3. That the proposed use is not in conflict with the stated intent of the zoning district in which it is to be located. That osed use 4 safety, andopwelfare; will not anrnusance;y orrm the pblic health, createuunreasonable congestion injurious to nearby properties. 5. That the proposed use does not interfere with the creation of a beneficial environment within its own property boundaries and on adjoining properties. 6. That the proposed use will not interfere with the provision of a reasonable economic benefit to the community. 7. That the provisions for interelationship between the development and contiguous and non-contiguousproposed will not adversely affect pedestrian or veculardmovement panderwi1l not adversely affect the buffering of service facilities and parking areas. J(JI C C Mortuaries 2 June 23, 1989 Specific lot requirements include: B1 B2 Lot Width 100' 100' Front Setback 35' 65' Side Setbacks 20' 10' Rear Setback 25' 15' Parking is based on 1 space per every 3 seats. Brooklyn Center Funeral and crematory services are allowed as a "permitted use" within the Service/Office District (C1) and the Commerce District (C2). Specific lot requirements include: Cl C2 Lot Width 150' 100' Front Setback 35' 35' Side Setbacks 10' 10' Rear Setback 40' 40' Parking is based on I space per every 3 seats. A special requirement of the CI and C2 Districts is that "Wherever a Cl or C2 development abuts a residential district other than at a public street line, buffer provisions shall be established. There shall be provided a protective strip not less than 15 feet wide in the Cl District or 35 feet wide in the C2 District with an opaque fence or wall or a Council approved substitute. The protective strip shall not be used for parking, driveways, offstreet loading or storage and shall be landscaped. The screening device design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the CI or C2 area. A proposed fence or wall shall be no less than four feet in height in the CI District or eight feet in height in the C2 District and shall not extend within 10 feet of any street right-of-way." t Mortuaries 4 June 23, 1989 Plymouth Mortuaries are a "permitted use" in the Office Limited (B1) District, Shopping Center Business (82) District, Service Business (83) District. 1. The B1 (OFFICE LIMITED DISTRICT) is intended to provide a district which is related to and may reasonably adjoin high density or other residential district for the location and development of administrative office buildings and related office uses which are subject to more restrictive controls. 2. The B-2 (SHOPPING CENTER BUSINESS DISTRICT) is intended to provide a district which may be applied to land in a single ownership or unified and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities at key locations which are suitable for such use, which are conveniently located to the residential area they are intended to serve. 3. The B-3 (SERVICE BUSINESS DISTRICT) is designed to furnish areas served by other business districts with wide range of services and goods which might otherwise be incompatible with the uses permitted in the shopping center business district. Specific lot requirements include: B_I B-2 B-3 Minimum Lot Size 1 acre 1 acre 1 acre Lot Depth 150' 20D' 150' Lot Width 150' 200' 150' Front Setback 5D' 50' 50' Side Setbacks 15' 35' 15' Rear Setback 25' 35' 25' Side Setback (Adjacent Residential) 75' 75' 75' Rear Setback (Adjacent Residential) 75' 75' 75' Parking requirement is 1 space per every 5 seats. Summary Based on the preceding information, mortuaries are allowed as transitional land uses between commercial and residential developments. Typical lot requirements include frg from 65 too35yard feetSeandcks rearyardnsetbacks5fromt15ofeetftot40 feet. Specialarequirementtsfeet for lots adjacent residential land uses include increased setbacks and special buffer strips. Parking is calculated at 1 space per 3 seats. Eden Prairie's zoning requirements are similar to those of the communities surveyed for this type of land use. /753 t t Mortuaries 3 June 23, 1989 Chanhassen Mortuaries are allowed as a "permitted use" in 3 separate zoning districts within the City of Chanhassen. This includes the Business and Highway Services (BH) District, General Business (BG) District, and the Office and Institutional (DI) District. BH BG 01 Lot Size 20,000 sq. ft. 20,00D sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. Lot Width 100' 1D0' 75' Lot Depth 150' 150' 150' Front Setback 25' 25' 55' Rear Setback 20' 20' 3D' Side Setbacks 10' 10' 15' A rearyard setback of 50 feet is required adjacent residential developments. Eagan The City of Eagan allows mortuaries within the Limited Business (LB) District. The Limited Business District is appropriate in those areas "that are particularly exposed to residential neighborhoods and are thus suitable to those businesses compatible with nearby residential use." Specific lot requirements include a 30 foot front setback and a 10 foot side setback. Maple Grove Mortuaries are a "conditional use" within the Residential Business (RB) District. This district is designed primarily to provide for "the transition in land use from residential to low intensity businesses allowing for the intermixing of such uses." Specific lot requirements within this district include a minimum size of 15,000 square feet, a lot width of 120', front setback of 30', side setback of 15', and a rear setback of 30'. Parking is based upon 20 spaces per chapel or parlor plus one for each funeral vehicle. The "purpose of a conditional use permit is to "provide the City of Maple Grove with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare public health and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of the adjoining land or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence located on the same premises, or on other lands immediately close by. The effect upon traffic into and from the premises or on any adjacent roads and all other further factors as the city shall deem a prerequisite of consideration determining the effect of use on the general welfare of the public health and safety." !7.-q t Mortuaries 5 June 23, 1989 The Comprehensive Guide Plan and zoning district designations which are most appropriate for mortuaries within the City of Eden Prairie are either Community or Regional Commercial. These districts are recommended due to the type of business proposed mortuaries n tuaries haveras to largepecific servicesite areacanderia thussuch as requiresiae and loation.centralclocationTwithagood access and room for ample parking. These attributes are common of the City's commercial districts. Examples of appropriate locations would be within the Major Center Area, the intersection of Highway 45 and Mitchell Road, and the intersection of Anderson Lakes Parkway and U.S. Highway 4169. Depending upon the size of the development, a mortuary could be placed adjacent to a residential district. Factors which should be taken into consideration when reviewing a mortuary in this type of location includes the following: 1) Size of the project - The project should be developed with a lower Base Area Ratio than what is allowed per City Code. 2) Buffering from adjacent land uses - An adequate buffer shall be provided between land uses to screen parking and loading areas. 3) Transportation capacity - A traffic study should be done to determine the impact of the project on the existing street network. Mortuary traffic should not be routed through residential neighborhoods. 4) Architectural style - The building shall be residential in style and be made of materials consistent with City Code. reS 77-77 x, F S PE ANNING TRANSPORTATION 777 ...111 ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE BENNETT RINGROSE WOESEELO JARVIS GARONER INC THRESHER SQUARE TOO THIRD ST SO MINNEAPOLIS.MN 55415 PH 612'3700100 TA1t 612,370 13711 DATE: December 7, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Don Uram City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 FROM: Nancy Heuer, PE Susan Pomnrehn, EIT ' RE: Trip Generation of Proposed Development at County Road 4 and Terrey Pine Court BACKGROUND BRW was retained by the City of Eden Prairie to evaluate the trip generation of a funeral home proposed for a one-acre parcel at the intersection of County Road 4 and Terrey Pine Court in Eden Prairie. The evaluation consists of comparing the estimated trip generation of a funeral home with other potential uses for the site. This memorandum documents the results of the evaluation. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION The trip generation was estimated for a proposed funeral home on a one-acre site at the intersection of County Road 4 and Terrey Pine Court in Eden Prairie. The proposed funeral home is expected to have 6,000 total square feet, two chapels with seating capacities of 80 and 100 seats, three to four employees, and pro- ., vide surface parking for 62 vehicles. The analysis used information provided by 0 the developer on the operation of similar funeral homes, since standard trip , generation data is not available. Several local funeral homes, contacted by BRW, also provided information on their operation for use in estimating trip generation. The trip generation for a funeral home is different from other land uses because it is dependent on the death rate of the surrounding community and the indivi- dual for which the funeral service is being held. The death rate in Eden Prairie is approximately 75 deaths per year, which reduces to potentially one or , two calls per week for funeral services. Therefore, there may be days where no traffic is generated by the funeral home other than by the three or four employees. MINNEAPOLIS ST PETERSBURG DENVER TUCSON PHOENIX JGJ�O Don Dram i, December 7, 1988 Page 2 Funeral homes typically provide visitation and funeral services at the funeral home. As many as one-half of the funeral services may be held at locations other than the funeral home, such as at churches. Attendance at the services is dependent on the individual who passed away. Visitation service attendance is typically higher than funeral service attendance. Attendance at either service at local funeral homes has ranged from ten to five hundred, with an average visitation attendance level of one hundred and an average funeral service atten- dance level of 75. Because the proposed funeral home has a seating capacity of 180 it both chapels are combined, a likely peak attendance level was assumed to be 200. Typically, visitation services are held in the late afternoon until the early evening and span a four- to five-hour period. About one-half of the funeral services are held in the funeral home, the others in surrounding churches. Typically, funeral services are held in the late morning or in the early after- noon for a period of approximately one hour. Neither service overlaps with the peak morning traffic on the adjacent roads. Only the late afternoon visitation service overlaps with the peak afternoon traffic period, and its traffic is spread over a four- or five-hour period. Typically two or three people will ride to and from the services together, which affects the amount of traffic generated by the site. The estimated range of traffic generated by the proposed funeral home is docu- mented in.Table 1. Three attendance levels were analyzed. For each service, the number of trips generated ranged from eight to 160. For a visitation ser- vice and a funeral service, an average of eighty and sixty trips (respectively) to and from the funeral home are expected. The 62-space parking lot is suf- ficient to accommodate the average attendance levels. TABLE 1 PROPOSED FUNERAL HOME ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION LAND ATTENDANCE AVERAGE VEHICLE NUMBER OF USE LEVEL OCCUPANCY SERVICE TRIPS VISITATION SERVICE 10 2.5 8 100 2.5 B0 200 2.5 160 FUNERAL SERVICE 10 2.5 8 75 2.5 60 200 2.5 160 Don Uram j December 7, 1988 Page 3 A typical day, consisting of either one funeral or one visitation, was used for comparison with other potential land uses. Only the visitation service would overlap with the peak traffic period on adjacent streets. The average daily trip generation for a visitation would be 80. These trips would primarily take place over a four-hour period which would place about 25 percent, or 20 trips during one hour. -These trips would probably not occur during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic, but would occur over an extended peak period (e.g., the hour after the peak hour). POTENTIAL DEVELDPMENT TRIP GENERATION The trip generation of the following potential land uses for the site was esti- mated for comparison: o single family residential o multi-family residential o commercial The trip generation analysis uses daily trip generation rates and peak hour per- centages published in the 1987, 4th Edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. These rates are the most current rates available for specific developments. 9 Currently,,, a 1,200 square foot floor area residential home occupies the one-acre site. The estimated trip generation of a single family detached house is docu- mented in Table 2. Approximately ten trips per day for a single family house is estimated, which is about twelve percent of the traffic generated by a funeral home for a typical visitation service. TABLE 2 POTENTIAL TRIP GENERATORS LAND DAILY DAILY PM PEAK PM PEAK USE UNITS TRIP RATE TRIPS HOUR PERCENT HOUR TRIPS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 DU 10.0 10 10 1 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 10 DU 6.0 6D 9.6 6 COMMERCIAL SCENARIO 1 1.2 K SF 35 42 7.4 3 SCENARIO 2 8.7 K SF 35 305 7.4 23 /75F Don Uram p December 7, 1988 * Page 4 Multi-family residential property is another potential use of the one-acre site. Typically, ten multi-family dwelling units can be constructed on a single acre. Table 2 documents the number of trips generated by the parcel if redeveloped into multi-family units. Approximately sixty trips per day would be generated, which is about 75_percent-of the traffic generated by a funeral home during a typical visitation service. Another potential use of the parcel is to convert to commercial use. Two sce- narios for commercial use have been analyzed. Scenario One is to convert the existing 1,20D-square-foot single family house into commercial property such as a florist. Scenario Two is to redevelop the entire parcel and build the maximum allowable space for commercial use. The allowable square feet developed for commercial use is approximately 8,700, which is about twenty percent of the total land area. Table 2 documents the number of trips generated by each sce- nario. Forty-two daily trips would be generated from a commercial property of the size described in Scenario One. This is approximately 50 percent of the traffic generated by a funeral home. Three hundred five daily trips would be generated from a commercial property as described in Scenario Two, which is almost four times greater than the daily traffic generated by a funeral home. SUMMARY The potential land use which generates the least amount of traffic on a daily basis is the existing single family home. Funeral home tripfl uc- tuates greatly from day to day. On days that services are held, the home could generate between eight and 320 trips per day (if a funeral and visi- tation services are held on the same day). Commercial use of the property would generate trips at a much more steady rate. Reuse of the existing building for commercial use would generate approximately the same number of trips as a multi- family development. Maximum use of the property for commercial use would generate approximately the same number of trips on a daily basis as the peak day for a funeral home. NH/lpm cc: Mark Senn, Marcus Corporation 8769 ,Elim Shores ralitAiii 3.11111111111 Where the Unity of Love Cultivates Service July 13, 1989 Mr. Don Uram, Assistant Planner City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Uram: For your information, enclosed are copies of letters supporting our opposition to the development of the mortuary adjacent to Elim Shores. We would appreciate you carefully reviewing each one. Please see that this information gets to other planning commission members. Thank you. Sincerely, Nancy Soman Marketing Coordinator NS:jf Enclosures cc: Chris Enger, Director of Planning Carl Jullie, City Manager Rental Office 16570 West 78th Street Suite 4 Eden Prairie.MN 55346 Office 6129343005 PIN 111 Health Planning& - Management Resources,inc. July 7,1989 Mr.Witham S.Myers, President Elim Care,Inc. 16570 W.78th Street Suite 4 Eden Prairie,MN 55346 Dear Bill, I am writing to respond to your question regarding the potential market impact of a mortuary located on the property next to your senior housing development in Eden Prairie. As you are aware, our firm has extensive experience in the market feasibility analysis for senior housing throughout the Upper Midwest area. In my opinion,the development of a mortuary adjacent to your property would have a significant negative impact on your development. I anticipate that it could make it nearly impossible to fill your project and keep it full. As you are aware,seniors in our metropolitan area have significant opportunities to "shop" for housing, and successful projects have to be carefully planned and managed. To attempt to market a project with a significant disadvantage is nearly impossible in this market. Seniors make the decision regarding senior housing very carefully, because for most of them, this is the last move that will make. They also are facing anxieties about making a move, and deciding whether they can adapt to the retirement community environment. To add a hurdle such as the mortuary to your marketing program would be a major stumbling block, and, I feel, will damage your project. (, )mcerely, Patricia A.McCullough PAM/jm Prime Professional Center 4970 Lincoln Drive Edina,Minnesota 55436 612-935-6077 06I MAXFIELD RE CH ROUP June 29, 1989 Ms. Sharon Gustafson Assured Performance, Inc. 810 N. Lilac Drive, Suite 202 Minneapolis, MN 55422 Dear Ms. Gustafson: Thank you for sending the information on the proposed funeral home that would be built next to your Elim Shores retirement community in Eden Prairie, Minne- sota. As you know, Maxfield Research Group, Inc. has been involved in over forty senior housing projects in the Twin Cities in the past five years. This has given us an extensive background in senior housing development, as well as knowledge of the motivating factors of seniors considering a move to senior congregate housing. With the substantial number of senior housing developments in the Twin Cities, and the oversupply of senior housing in the southwest suburbs, seniors have many options from which to choose. Location is of particular importance to seniors, since most prefer to live in the same community where they raised their children, went to church, and developed friendships. Some projects also attract residents due to sponsorship by religious groups or nursing homes, and may draw from a larger geographic area. In all cases, the physical setting for the project is important to seniors when they make their decision of where to live. Compatible land use is very important. Residential uses, parkland, and neighborhood retail facilities are generally considered favorably, while indus- trial uses and high-volume traffic generators (other than retail) are not as desirable. In my opinion, the development of a funeral home next to senior congregate housing is not an appropriate adjacent land use. While seniors are more ac- cepting of death, they do not want or need to be reminded of it on a daily basis. For this reason nursing homes are not allowed next to mortuaries, and hospitals and nursing homes that build senior housing on a campus will do everything possible to orient the senior housing to a different portion of the site and construct the senior housing out of different materials than the hos- pital or nursing home. Seniors also view the closeness to a nursing home or hospital as an advantage since if they need medical or nursing care, it will be available nearby. A mortuary on the other hand does not provide the same sense of security or long-term care. It is merely a facility dealing with death and grief, not a facility that prolongs life. 612; 2 0012 (21 KICKERNICK,a;p FIRST AVENUE NORTH 612.3;Co639FAX 76�1I\\EAI'OI.NMINNESOTA15d(A Ms. Sharon Gustafson dune 29, 1989 Assured Performance Page 2 In the past few days we telephoned several clients and marketing people at senior projects and asked them if a mortuary adjacent to their project would be marketing plus or a marketing deterrent. No one thought it would be a positive marketing feature, and almost all said it would be a negative to overcome dur- ing marketing. Comments included, "Definitely a negative - just too close - they would have to see it every day", "They wouldn't want to be reminded of death", "It's kind of crude - it's like they (the mortuary) are waiting for them to die". In summary, a mortuary adjacent to a senior housing project would be a constant reminder of death and dying, and would be a negative factor in the decision process of moving to senior housing. Since moving to senior housing is an emotional decision, and quite often made over a prolonged period of time, an adjacent mortuary could become a deciding factor in someone's decision to move or not move. It would be much easier to market a senior housing project that did not have an adjacent mortuary. Also, according to your site plan, many of your upper-floor units will look out over the parking lot of the funeral home as well as the receiving door for bodies. I would recommend that you strongly oppose the construction of a mortuary adjacent to Elim Shores. If you would like to discuss my comments further, please call. Sincerely, MAXFIELD RESEARCH GROUP, INC. Lee A. Maxfield President LAM/dak J( . 1 TO: Eden Prairie July 24, 1989 City Planning Commission Eden Prairie, Mn 55347 FROM: Mr & Mrs Alexander Barany 2910 East Franklin Avenue Minneapolis, Mn 55406 We are a retired couple in our 80s. Recently, we signed up to move into the soon to be built Elim Shores apartment complex. It will be an improvement in the quality of our lives because of its location, facilities and social setting. However, there appears to be a cloud forming over our carefully laid plans. That of the Planning Commissions consideration of allowing a funeral home to move into close proximity to our future home. Such an establishment would pose a constant reminder for all of us of advanced age that we may lose a loved one or a friend at any time. It would rob many people of their piece of mind at a time when their physical and emotional strenth is vaning. It would be in extremely bad taste, given the circumstances, and quite hurtful to many. We urge you to reconsider this zoning plan in the interest of decency and good taste. We are, after all, talking about a residential neighborhood. We do believe that people count in our community and would be very disappointed if the Planning Commission disregarded our feelings and infringed on the quality of our lives to appease business or for financial rewards. Please, do not let this happen to us. Si,pcerely, kV -C ,� C° ,.zt. �A exandervB'ran � n �.� d Lillian Barany minnesota department of health 717 s.e.delaware st p.o.box 9441 minneapolls S5440 Qf.") 16)t)513-7000 ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT & PREPARATION ROOM REQUIREMENTS In an effort to clarify a number of questions and situations that have come to our attention, the Minnesota Department of Health, Mortuary Science Unit is enclosing the following information pertaining to the Funeral Establish- ment Permit and preparation room requirements. 149.08. FUNERAL ESTABLISHMENT PERMIT. No person shall conduct, maintain, manage, or operate a funeral establishment unless a permit for each establish- ment has been issued by the Commissioner of Health and is conspicuously displayed in the funeral establishment. Each permit shall be valid only for one specific location, and separate permits shall be required of two or more firms operating from the same funeral establishment. "Funeral establishment" means every place or premise devoted to or used in the care and preparation for the funeral and burial of human dead, or as the office or place for carrying on the profession of funeral service, or for any combination of the foregoing purposes. A permit to operate a funeral establishment shall be issued by the Commissioner of Health upon application made on blanks furnished by the Commissioner and filed with the Commissioner and payment of a fee in an amount prescribed by the Commissioner pursuant to section 144.122. A permit shall expire and be renewed as prescribed by the Commissioner pursuant to section 144.122. Violation of any provision of Laws 1969, Chapter 149 or any rules or regula- tions of the Commissioner of Health committed by any person operating a funeral establishment or with his knowledge and consent by his officer, agent or employee, shall be considered sufficient cause for suspension or revocation of a funeral establishment permit. 4610.2300 SANITARY CONDITIONS OP MORTUARIES Subpart 1. Mortuary defined. A funeral home, mortuary, or funeral directing establishment is a facility approved by the commissioner and devoted to or used for, or held out to the public as a place for the care, preparation, or repose prior to burial or transportation of dead human bodies; or for the conducting of funeral services. However, these definitions are not applicable to any facility operated by a person holding a single license as funeral director as provided in Minnesota Statutes 1957, section 149.02. Subp. 2. Preparation room. All mortuaries and funeral directing establish- ments shall be maintained in a sanitary manner at all times. A properly lighted and ventilated preparation room shall be provided in every mortuary or funeral directing establishment. It shall have a tile, terrazzo, concrete, composition, or linoleum-covered floor which shall be kept in a smooth and easily cleanable condition and made free and clear of dust, dirt, refuse, and other contaminations. The operating or embalming table shall have a tile, metal, or other hard surface an equal opportunity employer f f j 2. sanitary top. The floors and walls of the preparation room and all embalming or dressing tables, portable couches, cooling boards, and transfer cases shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. Subp. 3. Embal`om The operating or embalming room shall be provided with an adequate water supply. Liquid waste from the operating or embalming tables shall be directed to an open fixture which is properly vented and con- nected to the building drainage system. Where a municipal sewerage system is available, the building drainage system shall be discharged into the municipal sewage system; where such a system is not available, the building drainage o system must be e be noscharged connectiontoraothersfactory priatearrang mentvfromsanyystep of iwa ngta disposal. plumbing fixture or device whereby unsafe water or other foreign material may be discharged or drawn into a safe water supply. Every plumbing fixture, receptacle, and water supply tank shall be provided with a proper air gap or other acceptable device to prevent backflow into the water supply. Subp. 4. Removal of waste. Refuse, bandages, cotton, wastes shall be collected in proper and convenient receptables which shall behprovided in the operating and preparation rooms. All such waste shall be destroyed by incineration and all embalming tables, hoppers, sinks, receptacles, instruments, and other appliances used in the embalming of dead human bodies shall be thoroughly cleaned immediately after the preparation of the case is completed. Statutory Authority: MS s 144.12 subd. 1; 144.122; 149.02 Regarding the Rule of a properly ventilated preparation room the Minnesota Dept. of Health recommends that the exhaust fan be capable of 12 to 15 air changes per hour in the average size preparation room. Also the exhaust fan should be so located that the air is drawn away from the operator. 4715.1950 PROHIBITED CONNECTIONS TO FIXTURES AND EQUIPMENT. B. operating, dissection, embalming and mortuary tables or similar equipment in such installation the hose used for water supply shall be equipped with a vacuum breaker installed at least six feet, six inches above the floor. In addition the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSHA) also requires a chemical eyewash station be located in the preparation room. Please contact our unit at (612) 623-5491 should you have any additional tc/66 ArA ASSURED PERFORMANCE, INC. 810 N orth Lilac Drive,Suite 202 Minneapolis.Minnesota 55422 612/522-1102 29 June 1989 Mr. William Myers, President Elim Care, Inc. 16570 West 78th Street, Suite 4 Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Dear Bill, As you are aware, Bill, Assured Performance started marketing the Elim Shores project approximately 18 months ago. At this time we are on target regarding the number of reservations achieved and dollars spent even though the market atmosphere has changed dramatically in the seven county area during this same period. Because of the soft senior market a number of retirement facilities are in very bad financial condition and are being forced into reorganization and the costly restructering of their debt. Assured Performance has, over the last five years, successfully marketed twenty-eight senior projects. 1 am aware of only two situations where a mortuary has been built in the close vicinity of the project; in both cases this proximity has created a marketing burden that has teed to default and near bankruptcy. ]t has been the mission of your total church body to develop a facility that will bring to the senior population a lifestyle of dignity, security and peace of mind. You, at great expenditure of time and money, chose a site that would promise a comfortable environment in a residental setting. A place where people can look forward to living, to inviting their friends and family, to enjoying their neighborhood. A mortuary next door would provide none of these and would in fact be a detriment in the marketing of Elim Shores. The constant reminder of their mortality, especially in these, their later years, would be morally and financially devastating. Since hearing the city of Eden Prairie is considering a zoning change that will allow the building of a mortuary next door to Elim Shores, I have surveyed many leaders In the field of retirement housing in the Twin City area. Their response is "It would be the kiss of death to a senior project." 1 strongly recommend the city of Eden Prairie turn down this request and urge the developer to build elsewhere. Sincere] , ��„s GGGGGGi� > I f/7,) 2--(—e(74 Darrell E. Westling Sharon Gustafson DEW/SG:mq MARKETING RETIREMENT HOUSING I6- • Elim Shores iti .,. Where the Unity of Love Cultivates Service June 29, 1989 Mr. Don Uram City of Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Don: I am writing this letter to express our extreme opposition to any zoning change to the property adjacent to Elim Shores retirement community. As you are aware, after an extensive search for the proper site for Elim Shores, being very concerned about the right characteristics to provide the optimum environment for retirement living, Elim Homes purchased and, with the cooperation of the City of Eden Prairie, entered into development agreements to provide this housing option for seniors in Eden Prairie. Extensive research was done prior to the purchase of this site to assure that appropriate zoning of adjacent properties was compatible for a senior retirement project. Since the property in question was zoned residential and there was a residence on the property, we did not anticipate there would be a change in zoning of that property. The proposed mortuary creates a severe hardship on the potential for successful marketing of Elim Shores. We are providing supporting evidence demonstrating the severity of this problem in the form of letters from senior housing professionals. Some additional concerns regarding the environment for our residents are: • - 1/4 of the apartments would be overlooking the garage door of the funeral home, Rental Office 16570 West 78th Street State 4 Eden Prairie.MN 55346 Office 612 934 3005 . Mr. Don Uram, City of Eden Prairie June 29, 1989 % Page 2 - not a 9 to 5 business, hearse would be coming and going all hours, - the constant reminder of death and the perceptions that exist with that, - we are aware of examples when funeral homes were unable to build near senior health care facilities, - there have been instances where funeral homes have installed a crematory which could raise additional concerns, - size of site may be inappropriate for intended use including available parking space and limited options for expansion. We feel very strongly that the success of our project is dependent upon the compatibility of our neighbors and we know that a mortuary adjacent to our site will cause hardship and the potential failure of our senior retirement project, thus we are protesting any zoning change on this site. Sincerely, William S. Myers President WM:nl Enclosure /`Eg 9 •='1 • L • _ •'ALL`OTNER.S. lre / June 27, 1989 Mr. William Myers President Elim Care, Inc. 102 South 8th Avenue Princeton, Minnesota 55371 Re: Elim Shores Eden Prairie, Minnesota Dear Bill: It has been brought to our attention that the City of Eden Prairie has been approached for the purpose of changing the zoning on a site adjacent to your Elim Shores project. It is our understanding that the proposed change is to permit a mortuary to be built adjacent to your senior congregate facility. My partner, Bruce Farrington, and I were both shocked to hear that the City of Eden Prairie would even consider such a zoning change after you have the financing in place and have started construction on your project. • As you know, Bruce and I have jointly and together more than 30 years of successful experience in long term care and congregate housing. We have developed and operated facilities throughout the United States and have marketed congregate care and retirement facilities such as your Elim Shores project in Minnesota, Florida, Arizona and Colorado and have consulted in other states. We therefore have the experience required to unequivically recommend that you take whatever steps that might be necessary to discourage such a zoning change. 810 North Lilac Drive,Suite 207 • Minneapolis,Minnesota 55422 Telephone:612/521-2565 /V FAX:612/521-2868 V Mr. William Myers June 27, 1989 Page 2 Albeit, there are undoubtedly congregate facilities and nursing homes around the country that have been owned or developed jointly with mortuary services. We cannot recommend this type of adjacent development. There is little or no symbiosis between these businesses. In fact, in some states there are regulations prohibiting the construction of a mortuary within the view of a long term care facility. In the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, the Nile Nursing Home comes to mind as an example of a situation where a nursing home has been built near a mortuary. The Nile facility is located at 3720 23rd Avenue South in Minneapolis. It is our understanding that the developers received permission to build the nursing home on this site only after modifying their plans so that the mortuary could not be seen from the nursing home. We can with a high level of certainty forecast that the marketing of your project will not be enhanced by having a mortuary in proximity to your project. In fact, it could provide a basis for sales resistance on the part of the families or significant others who assist in the selection of a residence for their aged parents or friends. On the other hand the residents themselves, all of whom will undoubtedly be in excess of 75 years of age rill have made funeral arrangements elsewhere and will not be using the mortuary themselves. The normal day to day functions of the mortuary would serve only as a constant reminder of their individual mortality. /Gf2/ r;. Mr. William Myers June 27, 1989 Page 3 With the proliferation of congregate facilities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, it becomes increasingly important that this type of facility be appropriately located in terms of the needs of the residents and their families. Negatives such as the mortuary facility cannot in any way enhance your efforts to fill your facility on a on a timely basis. The results of such development can only jeopardize the financial integrity of the project and lead to another potential congregate living failure in Eden Prairie. The stigma of the Castle Ridge apartments calamity has o y now begun to subside in this community. W- -- -.t s- how such a zoning change could benefit either yo. o the City .4' Eden Prairie. Sinc er 111011 'iOr 01 d P. Haar v S tive Vice P evident c . Bruce Farrington iYV DINT freasagt- tiE1611T6 June 23, 1989 Mr. Darrell Westling, President Assured Performance 810 North Lilac Drive, Suite 202 Minneapolis, MN. 55422 Mr. Westling: I wish to respond to your telephone inquiry regarding the situation in Eden Prairie, Minnesota where the construction of a funeral hone is being considered adjacent to the site of Evenshores Senior Apartments. As background to my comments, I wish to share that I am the Administrator and Director of Marketing for the Margaret S. Parmly Residence and Senior Apartments in Chisago City, Minnesota. It is a campus arrangement which includes Point Pleasant Heights, a 108 unit Senior Retirement Community constructed in 1987, and Parmly Lakeview Apartments, a 60 unit HUD 202, apartment canplex for the elderly and disabled. The Parmly Residence is a Skilled Nursing Facility licensed to serve 101 Residents. My experience in the development and management of Senior housing also includes the development and supervision of the construction of a 49 unit HUD 202 apartment project in Winona, Minnesota in 1984-85, and management of Augustana Lutheran Hanes' Gloria Dei Manor Apartments for the elderly in Litchfield, Minnesota frail 1979 to 1983. My experience in the development of Senior housing has consistantly proven that proper site selection is crucial to the success of the project, especially the initial occupancy. Along with site selection for the apartment complex itself, is the importance of the compatibility of the 'neighbors' to the Senior Apartment project, including businesses, private residences and other uses of adjacent property. There is growing competition in the Senior housing market and achieving the goal of a successful project is dependent upon including the advantage that can be gained through the positive integration of the project and its neighborhood. It is my opinion that construction of a funeral home adjacent to Senior housing is not an advantage to Evenshores Apartments, and I would not recognize them as compatible 'neighbors'. Ali i'I()wri •Road and''2x4111 Sireet C11isago City.Minnesota 55013 612'257-4035 rift Page 2 To gain a broader perspective on this issue, I contacted a number of my colleagues within the Board of Social Ministry with which the Parmly campus is affiliated who are involved in Senior housing. Without an exception, they agreed that construction of a funeral home adjacent to Senior apartments would not be a compatible arrangement. Both are important and necessary business entities to a community and though the inevitability of death is generally acknowledged, an apartment tenant, especially an elderly apartment tenant, need not be reminded of that certainty by the constant presence of a funeral have outside their apartment window. To that extent the opinion of my colleagues was that the construction of the funeral have adjacent to Evenshores would present a significant marketing disadvantage. If the Eden Prairie City Planners still have the opportunity to consider an alternate site for the construction of the funeral hone and a more compatible use of the property adjacent to Evenshores Senior Apartments, I would strongly recommend it. Sincerely, Mr. Charle immerman Administrator /61g 1011 Peltl Court #211 Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Mr. Gary D. Peterson Mayor of Eden Prairie 94400 Creekwood Drive eeEden Prairie, Minnesota 5534? �i�Dear Mr. Peterson; • This letter is in regard to the plans-for a Mortuary on Co.Rd.4 north of the Elim Shores senior resident. This_is a poor- location for a mortuaPy. In the Eden Prairie News Mark Senn from the Marcus Corporation stated there would be a parking lot for 60 car nd it would be a quiet. place with little.traffic. FALSE. • The intersection_ of Hwy.5 and 0o.Rd. .4 is one of the busiest eve t intersections city. of time there was a fu back-up traffic neral.The motorcycleescortwill hold up the traffic while the cars file out and the'`proceed slowly down the road. This will happen more than once a day for them to operate a profitabl.e_.business. We have had first hand experience with this problem at the Eden Prairie Presbyterian Church on Flying Cloud Drive. The motorcycle escorts havmheld up traffic for over twenty minutes while the cars filed out of the-church yard. The traffic then moved at a snails-.pace as far as CoFd.l where the procession turned-either--east to the-,Pleasant Hill Cemetery or west to the Eden Prairie Cemetery. Has the city investigated the long term-glans for-the Mortuary? We have a fair knowledge of the trends in._modern suburban mortuaries. Many are adding a crematory-with•its-smokestack. Some are building mausoleums. --The City of Eden Prairie has been very—slow housing for the moderate income senior citizens.rheriding as joy • and excitement wham we saw. the construction of Elim Shores begin. It was _going to .be a cheerful and happy place to live. The•activities-programseened..all up-beat. There should be no negative factors to over shadow our happiness. The infirmities of some will be greater than Others. Much time will be spent • in the room. They will sit by their windows. There only view will be a hearse pass by, a funeral procession and visitions. fE I • l ( Prom the deck of the apartment we have chos en 1 we can only see the activities at the mortuary -- -ver 'depressing. We had to move from Eden Prairie because there was no senior resident in the city. We have been so happy about Elim Shores but could never live there if the city gave its ok to a funeral home next door. In the Eden Prairie News Mr. Senn stated other senior residents didn't mine. He gave Apple Valley as am.example.•That-seminr resident it across the street and two blocks. from:She:mortuary . not next door. As stated in the E en Prairie News this funeral home would be the 'Kiss of Death for the Senior Project". The city of Eden Prairie would be the big losers. incerely�y .4— .. ._Calvin�A.Anderson L�`-}r An `erso'G July 28, 1989 Honorable Mayor Gary D. Peterson Members of the City Council 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN RE: Marcus Corporation Representation of Carolyn "Connie" Anderson - Eden Prairie Funeral Home Dear Mayor Peterson and Members of the City Council: I am Carolyn "Connie" Anderson. I live at 17065 West 78th Street, Eden Prairie. My mother died last year and I am the representative for her estate. I would like to make some comments on behalf of the Moran family. My Great Grandfather homesteaded in Eden Prairie in 1854. He immediately set about to be a part of the community. The Moran family is among the founders of the Eden Prairie Methodist Church and the Eden Prairie Community Cemetery. My Grandfather was a constable in our town and was active in organizing the farmer's to pool their equipment at harvest time. In 1929 my parents built their house on the site we are now talking about. The following year my father built the garage to operate his trucking business from. His trucks picked up fresh milk from the farmers and hauled it to the creameries in Minneapolis. His routes encompassed the entire township of Eden Prairie. He served on the School Board for approximately 10 years. Both my mother and father were always concerned about the development of our community. In 1950 I moved a couple blocks away from home to Highway 5, and I still live there. There has never been a tax roll in the history of Eden Prairie that the Moran's have not paid a portion of. There has been a tremendous change in Eden Prairie just in my lifetime. I didn't have to go to the City - it came to me. Now in 1989 my family finds the home we grew up in is an island within new construction. Page 2 We approached Mark Senn some time ago and asked him for his ideas on what we might do with the property. We wanted to do something that would be right for us and for Eden Prairie. We were interested in preserving something of the Old Eden Prairie, and we also wanted something that would be compatible with the changing scene on Highways 4 & 5. How could we fit in? Our problem was that the Highway was taking land at the front. Terry Pine is becoming a major intersection with a conversion to part of the Highway 5 service road. There was multiple zoning to the West and South. A doctor's office to the North and a Burger King and Mini Storage on the East. We found we couldn't rent the house successfully. The noise of living right on top of all the activity became such a problem we had to give up that idea. When the offer of the funeral home came along it seemed to be the perfect answer. We felt it will provide the community with a service it doesn't have. It will be a good transitional use of the land, and the plans to incorporate the present house within the new structure will give our homestead the dignity it so well deserves. None of our decisions were taken lightly. We went through countless painstaking efforts before we ever reached this decision. We funded a traffic study in conjunction with the City which reflected very positively on this use versus other commercial or multi-family use. We had numerous neighborhood meetings and discussions which were especially attended by the Terry Pine residents. I was concerned because these people are our neighbors. They all made it very clear that they realized something would have to happen on the site. They strongly preferred the funeral home to any other commercial use and strongly preferred it over additional multi-family housing. With the property's current designation of multi-family we checked with a number of multi-family housing developers and they all said the same thing. They were not interested because of the relative size of the parcel and they also commented that "no one would be interested in raising children on that intersection". We have listened carefully to Elim Shores last minute comments and objections at our meetings and at the Planning Commission meeting. They say our project will make marketing Page 3 Elim Shores a hardship. They said changing the use of our property would be detrimental to their marketing. First of all our project has been designed so they cannot even see most or all of it. Secondly, it is not our responsibility or the City's that Elim Shores makes more money. These comments are particularly irritating because from our perspective, the City has already changed the zoning on the Elim Shores property to allow it to be built and has given it numerous variances. Elim Shores has, in fact, been detrimental to our property and its continued single family use. It has not impacted the auxiliary commercial structure use. When our property was put into single family we never perceived that everything around us would be zoned to other uses. We are being forced to change given all the changes that have occurred with City approval over the last 60 years. Now we are being told that no matter what we must change, someone is going to object. We really thought we were doing the right thing and accommodating the desires of the existing surrounding neighbors with our plans. Quite frankly, I am at a loss to understand why we should now be penalized given all the other approved changes. At the Planning Commission, one of the Elim Shores staff marketing people who is evidently married to a funeral home director made two very misleading comments. She said one- quarter of the units would overlook the funeral home. These 15 units are on the North end of their building as I understand it. They are at a much lower grade than we are so the will hardly be overlooking our project. With our landscaping, only the 5 top units will be able to see only a small part of the upper portion of the funeral home. In addition, she stated that there was a state law prohibiting location of a nursing home next to a funeral home. Number one - it isn't a state law, it is a state health regulation. Number two - Elim Shores is not a nursing home. Consequently, there is no prohibition against putting an Elim Shores type of project next to a funeral home. In fact, there are numerous other situations where they are located side-by-side all •around the Metro area and Minnesota. If Elim Shores plans on putting a nursing home facility on the property in the future the regulations they have cited prohibit it for numerous other reasons other than the funeral home proximity. iV709 Page 4 I have attached several pieces of correspondence from experts and others that directly contradict the claims of Elim Shores. Please read Mr. Richard Obershaw's letter carefully. He is a long time national expert in this field of expertise. He points out quite to the contrary that there will not be negative impacts. We would very much like to deal with any questions or concerns you may have prior to the Council Meeting so please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Carolyn "Connie" Anderson CA/bjm Enclosures lido I GRIEF CENTER RIDGE POINT MEDICAL BUILDING•SUITE 312 14050 ICOLLET AVENUE SOUTH BURNSVILLE,MN 55337 Richard J.Oberahaw,MSW,ACSW,Director (6I2)435-4144 June 16, 1989 Mr. Mark Senn Marcus Corporation Suite 100 10001 Wayzata Blvd Minnetonka, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Senn: It has recently been brought to my attention that your corporation has bean in the process of assisting a client of yours in developing a funeral home in Eden Prairie, MN. I understand the funeral hane will be located on the southwest corner of Eden Prairie Road and Highway 5 in Eden Prairie. I have also been made aware of the fact that there are sane people who feel this facility should not be allowed in the vicinity of a senior citizen highrise building. It is with this last awareness that I feel compelled to write to you on behalf of the funeral have you re{aresent. Please all me to introduce myself through this letter, as well as through the attached resume. I regret that I will not be able to attend your meeting Thursday morning or your meeting June 26 in the evening. My patient load and out of town speaking schedule does not allow for the attendance I would choose to make. Thus, I ask this letter be a part of my feelings on the topic of the proximity of a funeral hane and a have for elderly citizens. I have, for the past twenty four years, been working with the elderly in the capacity of a professional counselor and have mainly worked with them on issues related to death, dying, grief and funerals. I have also spent a goad deal of my professional career working with patients with chronic gerontological issues, i.e. strokes, chronic congestive heart disease, loss of eyesight, loss of mobility, amputation, widowhood, dying and numerous other issues. Duffing this professional time, I have found the elelerly to be quite irritated by the younger person's attitude concerning death, dying, aging, widowhood, funerals and other normal and natural factors of life. They consistently point out that because of other's inability to accept these realities, it plaoes the elderly on the "outside" of the society in • America. In the past years, society has changed and today the elderly are finding it appealing to locate in a facility that caters to their needs rather than living in an extended family situation that does not meet their diverse needs. Thus, the reason they choose to enter a senior citizen complex so as not to feel like they are isolated and alone. In individual Counseling•Family Counseling•Grief Groups•Referrals•Psychological Evaluations STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVED RULE 29 MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC MARK SENN -2- June 16, 1989 I see the proximity of a funeral home to a senior citizen complex to be an assist in a number of ways: (1) When friends in the oommnity and complex die the residents will be able to feel safe and canfortable going to this facility that is near their pane. No need for night driving and fears of falling in bad weather. (2) More people will turn out to comfort the bereaved because of the shared intimacy of the complex. Senior complexes band together because they became their own support community. This new community will cane to call the funeral home "their funeral home." Shared grief is very helpful to the bereaved. (3) Contrary to p17ar belief that would want one to believe that senior citizens fear being around funeral directors because "they remind then of gruesome, impending death," the opposite is often the truth. The elderly have foal bonds with funeral directors. These people will often visit with the closest funeral director and ask for professional advice and counsel about thanatological issues. They will often make their own advance funeral arrangements with a funeral. director with wham they feel trust and respect. The proximity factor of this proposed arrangements should also foster the trust factor for these individuals. (4) A major fear that many elderly people have is that once dead, they will be abandoned in thought and be forgotten. The presence of this facility will remind then of their continuance as I have instructed the funeral director to design a "board of remembrance" for the community members they serve. I am certain that I could fill a bock with positive reasons for this funeral home facility to be built next to the senior complex. Suffice it to say I see numerous positives about such an endeavor and few, if any, negatives. I am seceding this letter since, dune to my sdnedule, I am unable to attend the meeting in person. If you, or any members who are interested in further discussion would like to discuss this in greater detail, please contact me at the above plane number. • Sin J. Obe w, MSW, ACSW Director • RESUME RICHARD J. OBERSBAW 312 Ridge Point Medical Building 14050 Nicollet Avenue South Burnsville, Minnesota 55337 Phone: (612) 435-4144 EDUCATION 1975 - Master Degree-Social Work (MSW), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 1973 - Bachelor of Science Degree-Social Work and Psychology, University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse, LaCrosse, WI. 1966 - Associate Degree-Mortuary Science, Wisconsin Institute of Mortuary Science, Milwaukee, WI. PRESENT PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS 1978 - Present BURNSVILLE COUNSELING CLINIC, Burnsville, MN. Director and therapist; Counseling with individuals and groups. Marriage, family, and individual counseling. Main emphasis on grief therapy. Administrative duties. 1977 - Present GRIEF CENTER, Burnsville, MN. Founder and Director; Grief therapy and numerous educational presentations around the United States, on thanatological issues. 1977 - Present Associate Professor, Department of Continuing Education, School of Social Work, University of Minnesota. 1977 - Present Consultant, Lutheran Social Services Friendship House Minneapolis, MN. Adolescent Treatment Center. 1975 - Present Lecturer, Nationally known speaker on topics of Death, dying, grief, grief therapy, funerals, stress, depression, and personality issues. PREVIOUS PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS 1973 - 1981 Consultant/Counselor, Werness Brothers Funeral Chapels, Minneapolis, MN. Director of staff and community education programs. Professional liaison with community professionals. 1973 - 1980 Instructor, University of Minnesota, College of Health Sciences, Department of Mortuary Science. Part-time. /00s OBERSHAW - RESUME Page (2) 1973 - 1977 Clinical associate, University of MN. Center for Death Education and Research, under the direction of founder Robert Fulton, Ph.D. 1971 - 1973 Sletten-McKee Hanson Funeral Home, LaCrosse, WI. Part-time employment; funeral director. 1966 - 1971 Novitzke Funeral Home, Park Falls, WI. Employed full time as a licensed funeral director. 1967 - 1969 U.S. Army, E-6 Staff Sergeant, Republic of South Viet Nam, wounded May 1969. Discharged 40% disability rated. 1964 - 1966 Borgwardt Funeral Hones, Milwaukee, WI. Student and funeral director internship. . PUBLICATIONS Obershaw, R.J„ The Nurses Bereavement, Unpublished thesis and presen- tation, American Association of Critical Care Nurses. National Teaching Institute, 1981. Obershaw, R,.J., Death, Grief And Bereavement, Control Data Corporation, Minneapolis, MN. The first computer learning program in the United States developed on the topic of death/grief, 197E Obershaw, R.J., The Child And The Crisis Of Death, A five part film-strip series, Parents Magazine Films Inc. New York, 1975 Obershaw, R.J., Death, Dying, Grief and Funerals, Grief Center, Minneapolis, MN. 1974. Obershaw, R.J., Consent Or Counsel, The Director, National Funeral Directors Association, Oct. 1974. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS National Association of Social Workers National Association of Community Mental Health Centers National Funeral Directors Association AWARDS 1984 - Outstanding Alumnus Award - Department of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse, LaCrosse, WI. 'WI •MA1 CUS C' Real Estate Development CORPORATION June 20, 1989 Mr. Don Uram City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Don: Once we learned a senior residential complex was going to be built to the South of our project, we began to research the issue given our concern and/or sensitivity to any conceived notions as to positive or negative impacts. We then .contacted numerous people involved in like situations and generally found that a funeral home business in proximity to a senior living situation was viewed favorably. Many senior complexes are located close to or next to hospitals where people pass every day, yet hospitals are viewed by seniors as service organizations in which it is convenient and beneficial to be located near. The notion is not one of being close to a place for negative reasons but rather for positive reasons such as convenience to the service and convenience to visiting friends needing those services. What we found was funeral homes are viewed in the same fashion. Again the positive factors weigh heavily, primarily on convenience. Examples of a few of the people we talked with are detailed below: Nile Nursing Home 3720 23rd Ave. S (Next door to Anderson Funeral Home) Administrator: Del Rose "Creates no problem with occupancy or rates." "Users of funeral homes next door often times help our occupancy. If a spouse dies, in numerous cases the other spouse moves into their facility." I don't see anything objectionable at all in having a funeral home next door." 10001 Wayzata Blvd.•Suite 100•Minnetonka MN 55343•(612)593-1 177 c Mrs. Mulder Castle Ridge Care Center Eden Prairie "I don't see having a funeral home next door as being objectionable to seniors." "I don't feel having a funeral home next door would affect occupancy or rates" "We need a funeral home in the Eden Prairie community for senior residents now and even more in the future as the community.-grows.". - - -- - . - We also talked to several residents in Excelsior living in senior.apartments next to Huber's Funeral Home. They all saw no negative connotations. :,The Administrator we talked to at Excelsior Care Center had many of the same comments. He mentioned his only concerns would be.that signage be handled tastefully and that landscaping should also be handled effectively. I hope this aids in dispelling on any perceived negative connotations that may arise out of our two projects being next to each other. If you would like any more information or have any additional questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Mark O. Senn MOS/bjm } t{ 7 /176 e goo ‘razz) &L.7LQ EL„ & c=„ FLaEI 41-,J -r- kt,Lt &Q.-at &Le_ iJ Z2 O7art„ (5-'0 32 ele4,,z4;. /70 /-ro/U Garrett Avenues .t/1(?Ir Iih .. .1/II/Nt'Uk1• ;5/2 r--�lN•Phone -r5/- NO) • ( 4ppCe viCCv y i,..§t ,./5e, /fry "7::-1�/_LcC ,„ * ` C t`�c,,,.. . 0 �_, ,,a „...,. ‘,'..0.4-Ze.. J,jç2 # € ./ ae! a-7` //io .�� ,c.a '`C ,..7- ....,--- Y 1./aL� ,.0-:_ /,e2 hie. ,...i, ,z-4.,...f77 :-...--71-7,-ez-e-. 0/''& AZ, Aat, ....„.... ,,,-.L.z ,, 4;4 e".'' '' ''' -1••"' /41 s•S'....L...d e".*Iko' Sec ez---,Z w -e w ,--v .« y___ ...s-3,._z,„j ,(4-e-e-a.--- GAL -i' d .< �LIGt'y�- (f../.,_e,_ --‘,., /�' ce` i/ > - r / / C.L-,{ -- / / 7L/ / �. Z.: lti- ..j Gr m7'7 ' . . . 4"4 -"°' :••C-Ll'Unr•-•44:r.-....--Z7:-.1/ ...•'. .C. ....-14-4 ----'<- ..." - -'74/4.- • Ze--s s-e-......-., ,, ,"`• a- - - •-•:__ A4 - ......,e,_ ‘,.......7,‘,...,_de_„<„, ,--....:,...2_,...../ ar-1. . ....-eff.,,7 ,..• e _.- te... . - ,„:7- 776._ X-.,..,...—e ........7"....6_ -Z-,-- , ---",fr-i-,'-e-d_ ......."-W-r•-e.-ei ele-Z.:;;;., , ' ---14-"4.-' ./..... ,•-•74- ,,,,,i,"&"2"-,--,_., ..„...-.^-'741 ..--0171,-.."'".•••-' • ..," :::-1,-t; ...•-••' :---'" --.....---c••••e.....---e/, , ', .......Z"..t:— fi....:::,_._,1- 62','`-‘1/.••••"K:.--Ett.IfT.;,:•.- .•• efe;%-r 4...,•1,4—c_.;,_,. ,,-7Z- ....„,4, .....A. } , -,-- ...-7,......, 74.•e• ./ if • __d_ ,j_.• • -,_ ...,..•fie c-7 -db•I'1" ---...-7":%"- ii:;?.: - -... -e-s .......-7110g--r-C• 6/2.11,t_4/e•••-e-----,-- /-..::(-- - •e"‘....;•27.-.-.jr•`-‘,1•4.--te--,..•.-4.-- . , --- '.74--'4‘2. 4'•''''''- 4- ,71,-/-.>"?Zn- . ,,. ...0::. ,., 7," ,_.. .(71••-cee-e:-c-,-, C.--..„-c-c -- , - . ---•,-.--- ....„ --dr." __.• -7,1 7.-., ,•- •' -`..z----' '-'-. 1/ -.-e L. cf_ -.1 .•7-•. t.- -...241, •-- , / • /1, 7 4,5.••,.,- .._,_7."7: 7-..--;=..-••.:- ----- //,-L,, t'-4•:'C'Z';'‘'", ,-' / .......Y6: ,..,••--•-..'" z 7.-4,i--..44,',4-5•L''''''.. ' ba • •''''..4 .-.4.••c...„. • , ,774: 1"' ,›Z:f...•::¢-6,- . .C.-.../ ra e,... /6.......,i,./ e-c"..--..0_ ee-774 at. 1 . ' Taffev VtiCiot ,_ ,..7. ,::„ 1:3 - .....446: ,....., ... .. e•yre 2,.,• c_, - 09 ,s...-- ,,,,„. e,.— •'--": 1..- -i----,- , _e_,...,, e,., •• — _,_ _ _ �� �C� `Z�c�.CCey `Z'iCCa — L) `4 Retirement Contntunity" A Chosen Lifestyle for those 55 & Better. Compare us with all the others . . . and your choice will be Apple Valley Villa. \-lost retuemenr Hm! arrangements for senior parents are made with the assistance and appro,ai of son_ and dauahtet;. Hai:v and I'eali Lemieu\are pleated to introduce to adult children and their pate.n;s the finest and ,atest rental retirement comnnttrinv in the area Bien_ .,our parents (et come goursell) tot a guided tour, see our lifestyle and join is for a del{"ous, conttiiunenta{)'dinner in our formal dinine room. CALL. OUR 110L r1 H COl'ysLI.OR FOR INFORMATION AND REsLRVVI1OV'S 4+1-7800 A- .tI t IIp. rah ... ^1 I ,' � '..�� ...:r• am ON v r • ri„._, ,_ ''' ' it_ ......1 . .'.`br ice.,_ , ,,z-,._. _ <!{1•.., .. .. sr11117 T _ c, rlf 1 !a: ✓ r; � � 116111 (,.irrctt .1'enuc Apple \alles \1\ 55124 \ ' ' hh,L.,,s1 H (,-11.1r I,111 Ion {J,.il,. iirfh ,I ( nnnl' Rnad a_ III nnni,lr.it ,n. ArrP^rt ( July 17, 1989 Eden Prairie Planning Commission 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN Dear Members of the Planning Commission: It is my understanding that a proposed funeral home is being considered for operation at the location of County Road 4 and County Road 5 in Eden Prairie. In regard to this proposal, I have no objection to this type of business in proximity to my current operations. Additionally, i do not perceive any negative consequences arising from this business to the Community of Eden Prairie. S' cerely, I Everett. riskill Super Value Stores 6i7C'+SKIL-4-'5) /79 I CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION #89-171 RESDLUTIDN APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LAMETTRY CENTER FOR RICHARD A. LAMETTRY BE IT RESOLVED, by the Eden Prairie City Council as follows: That the preliminary plat of LaMettry Center for Richard A. LaMettry, dated July 5, 1989, consisting of 1.88 acres into one lot, a copy of which is on file at the City Hall, is found to be in conformance with the provisions of the Eden Prairie Zoning and Platting ordinances, and amendments thereto, and is herein approved. ADDPTED by the Eden Prairie City Council on the 24th day of July, 1989. Gary D. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: John D. Frane, City Clerk in; ( ( STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning DATE: July 7, 1989 SUBJECT: LaMettry Center LOCATION: West of Plaza Drive, southeast of Menards. APPLICANT/ FEE OWNER: Rick LaMettry REQUEST: 1. Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 1.88 acres. 2. Preliminary Mat of 1.88 acres into 1 lot. Background This site is currently guided �;:—Tr ITS,"�." \ j FP s�\. 1-•'' r Regional Commercial. Surrounding ` �.'� properties are also guided Regional i;. ,�-. ^---^� Commercial. Specific land uses in �� "�, , the area include Menards and the `��;' Factory Outlet Center. zoned C-Reg- 1 ?2 J _ �- Ser to the north and east. The ' - proponent is requesting a Zoning ' r • ,• 1 District Change from Rural to C-Reg- .."1.,,,',,--,.. � r Ser and the Preliminary Platting of ��1 ; ' F P. / 1.B8 acres into 1 lot to allow for ) the construction of a 32,5D8 square >\ foot auto-service center. The plat pug, • ',_.;--,_'•.,., includes the lot previously approved for Sherwin-Williams. Q F C -• Preliminary Plat/Site Plan 1 - - C-REG-SER w.\' " ` OFC The site plan depicts the ,_, C REG construction of a 32,508 square foot - building on 1.88 acres at a 19.2% C•REG Base Area Ratio (8.A.R.) and a 38.9% C-REG-SER . Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.). In the .GCl. C-REC C-Reg-Ser Zoning District, the Code would allow up to a 20% B.A.R. and a 3'SER I ", _% .:. 40% F.A.R.. The building and `_ PROPOSED SITE parking areas meet the minimun r•► t♦ requirements of the C-Reg-Ser zoning district. I _� I AREA LOCATION MAP j l'ic1� (_ LaMettry Center 2 July 7, 1989 Based upon a Code requirement of 6 spaces/1,000 square feet for retail and 1 space/2,000 square feet for warehouse, a total 105 parking stalls are required for this project. However, because specific uses have been identified, including a body shop as the major tenant, a total of 69 parking stalis are needed. A total of 75 parking stalls are provided with proof-of-parking up to 86 spaces. If the property is converted to a 100% retail operation, 110 parking stalis can be provided which includes 19 basement spaces. Access to the site is proposed by two existing driveways into Menard's and a one way access into the project site. This access meets the minimum recommended standards for sight distance. Grading This site has been previously graded with the Menard's shopping center. Existing contour elevations range from an 853 in the northwest corner of the site to an 858 along the east property line. Approximately 7 feet of excavation is required because of the building design which includes a lower level for automobile storage space. Because of the building use, overhead garage doors are required and thus the need for substantial screening. To do this, the proponent shall provide the maximum berm height allowed within the frontyard setback based on a 3:1 slope. Even with a maximum berm height, the automobiles parked adjacent the building will be visible because of the parking lot elevation. The parking lot cannot be lowered due to the existing invert elevations of the required utility connections. Significant landscaping has been provided to help screen the parking lot area and the overhead doors. Utilities Utility services are available to this project through connections made to the existing 60-inch MWCC sanitary sewer line to the north of the building and an 8-inch water line located adjacent Plaza Orive to the north. Storm water run-off is proposed to be collected within a parking lot catch basin system and discharged into the existing 36-inch storm sewer line. Architecture The building has been designed primarily as one story in height with the exception of the office portion of the building located along the east property line. All automobile storage will be in the basement of the building. The primary orientation of the building is towards Plaza Orive and to the west. Interesting architectural characteristics include the use of a sloped canopy, a second story office with a peaked roof, and a round stair tower. The rear of the building facing Menard's parking lot is relatively plain and depends upon heavy landscaping to break-up building mass. 8uilding materials include face brick, metal, and glass. The use of reflective garage doors to match windows, modular windows, different brick sizes and colors, and the canopy add interest to the building as well as help to screen overhead doors. Landscaping Based upon a building square footage of 32,508, a total of 102 caliper inches of landscaping material is required. The landscape plan depicts a total of 203 caliper C C LaMettry Center 3 July 7, 1989 inches in addition to ornamental trees and shrubs. In order to help screen the overhead garage doors, a total of 42 evergreens are proposed. The size of the trees are evenly distributed between 8 and 10 feet. Because the project depends primarily on landscaping for screening purposes, an irrigation system shall be installed to help insure survival of the trees. Signage/Lighting A detailed signage plan depicting consistant letter styles, colors, and sizes shall be submitted prior to Council review. Site lighting shall be of the same type as the existing Menard's site lighting. Pedestrian Systems A 5-foot concrete sidewalk is required along the north and west sides of Plaza Drive to allow pedestrian access to the adjacent properties. Staff Recommendations The Planning Staff recommends approval of the Zoning District Change from Rural to C-Reg-Ser on 1.88 acres and the Preliminary Platting of 1.88 acres into one lot based upon revised plans dated July 5, 1989, the Staff Report dated July 7, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Revise the plans to depict a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the north and west side of Plaza Drive. B. An overall signage plan shall be submitted depicting size, color, and letter type. C. Submit an overall lighting plan for review. D. Colors and samples of the exterior building materials shall be provided. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed storm water run-off and erosion control plans for review by the Watershed District. B. Submit detailed storm water run-off, utility, and erosion control plans for review by the City Engineer. C. Provide cross access easements for access into Menard's from the project site. D. Provide utility easements for the proposed utility extensions. 3. Prior building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Notify the City and Watershed District at least 48 hours in advance. /Y95 C (" LaMettry Center 4 July 7, 1989 B. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. C. Provide plans for review by the Fire Marshal. 4. Proponent shall agree to limit all automobile storage within the basement of the building. No outside storage storage of vehicles shall be allowed. 1146 AUGUST 1,1989 52526 STATE TREASURER LICENSE FEE-SEWER DEPT 15.00 52527 DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVICES MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS 17.00 57"9 CITY OF RICHFIELD MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS 21.00 5 LANG PAULY & GREGERSON LTD MAY 89 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFILL 6247.23 52530 CINEPLEX ODEUM WESTWIND THEATRES TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM/FEES PAID 78.00 52531 WILSON TANNER GRAPHICS -OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL/BUSINESS CARDS- 3078.00 -$355.00-POLICE DEPT/PARK MAPS-$699.00- -PARK PLANNING/PUBLICITY-S1947.00-SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 52532 V010 OUT CHECK 0.00 52533 MINN P 0 S 1 HOARD LICENSE FEE-POLICE DEPT 15.00 52534 PETTY CASH-POLICE DEPT EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 78.03 52535 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE JUNE 89 FUEL TAX 180.B0 52536 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 845.24 52537 FIRST BANK EDEN PRAIRIE PAYROLL 7/7/89 1, 7/14/89 59240.25 52538 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE PAYROLL 7/7/B9 & 714/89 12619.80 52539 MEDCENTERS HEALTH PLAN INC JULY 89 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 14489.25 52540 PHYSICIANS HEALTH PLAN JULY 89 HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM 25757.63 52541 DARWIN BOUTIELLE REFUND-DIVING LESSONS 22.00 52542 LINDA BRECHTEL REFUND-DIVING LESSONS 22.00 52543 DAWN CLARK REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 29.20 52544 GRETCHEN DDRR REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 38.00 52545 GRACE DUMALAG REFUND-DIVING LESSONS 16.00 52546 RITA CREVIER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 10.00 52547 D L IESH REFUND•DIVING LESSONS 27.00 52548 KINDERCARE REFUND-DAYCARE LESSONS 79.00 52549 ANNETTE LORNTSDN REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 13.00 52550 HAROLD LINDELOF REFUND-DIVING LESSONS 22.00 52 CAREN LUCENTE REFUND-AQUA AEROBICS CLASS 18.40 Sc JANIS MAYER REFUND-DIVING LESSONS 22.00 52553 GLENN OLSON REFUND-DIVING LESSONS 22.00 52554 DERWOOD TWIGG REFUND-DIVING LESSONS 16.00 52555 GARY VANDERWATER REFUND-DIVING LESSONS 22.00 52556 BUSINESS RECORDS CORPORATION SCHOOL-ELECTIONS 1200.00 52557 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 4902.21 52558 RAINBOW FOODS EXPENSES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 19.76 52559 MC DONALD'S EXPENSES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 4.52 52560 RAINBOW FOODS EXPENSES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 19.76 52561 MC DONALD'S EXPENSES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 4.52 52562 DANA GIBBS SERVICE-PACKET DELIVERY 387.00 52563 MIAMA CONFERENCE-COMMUNITY CENTER 380.00 52564 STATE TREASURER STATE OF MINNESOT LICENSE FEE-WATER DEPT 15.00 52565 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 298.29 52566 MC DONALD'S EXPENSES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 13.25 52567 C MARC WEBER -ENTERTAINMENT-CONCERTS IN THE PARKS- 300.00 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 52568 CLIMB THEATRE -ENTERTAINMENT-SUNDAY VARIETY IN THE PARK- 125.00 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 52569 THE FLYERS -ENTERTAINMENT-SUNDAY VARIETY IN THE PARK- 175.00 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 52570 SUPPLEE'S 7 HI ENTERPRISES INC JULY 89 RENT-LIQUOR STORE 4671.77 52571 FELLOWSHIP OF FIRE CHAPLAINS CONF SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 85.00 52572 MINNESOTA VALLEY LANDSCAPE INC 5 TREES-FRANLO ROAD 800.00 527' U S WEST CELLULAR INC SERVICE 115.37 52. GTE SUN COMMUNITY DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING-COMMUNITY CENTER 55.62 13662790 AUGUST 1.1989 52575 MN DEPT OF P/S MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATIONS 100.75 52576 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 308.00 52577 LOIS BOETTCHER MINUTES-HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION 57.84 5^"8 PSC LEASING & MAINTENANCE -JUNE JULY & AUGUST 89 MAINTENANCE 1465.50 AGREEMENT-FACILITIES DEPT 52579 POMMER COMPANY INC TROPHIES-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 38.50 52580 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC -GAMES/TOYS-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND/SPECIAL 914.22 EVENTS/JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 52581 W GORDON SMITH CO -PLIERS/LUBRICANTS/GAS/OIL/BULB-WATER DEPT/ 163.83 POLICE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52582 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL PDLICE EO -POLICE BARRICADES/AMMUNITION/I9 POINT 1456.25 -BLANK COVERS FOR BALLISTIC VESTS-$864.B5- POLICE FORFEITURE-DRUGS 52583 VALLEYFAIR TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM/FEES PAID 343.50 52584 VALLEYFAIR SPECIAL EVENTS/FEES PAID 911.25 52585 AT&T CONSUMER PRODUCTS DIV SERVICE 98.60 52586 AT&T CREDIT CORPORATION SERVICE 98.67 52587 MINNESOTA VALLEY ELECTRIC CO-OP SERVICE 55.25 52588 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO SERVICE 3154.03 52589 NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY SERVICE 14282.99 52590 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 19.50 52591 JEAN HARRIS EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER 200.00 52592 RICHARD ANDERSON EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER 508.00 52593 PATRICIA PIDCOCK EXPENSES-COUNCILMEMBER 200.00 52594 THANE HAWKINS POLAR CHEVROLET 1989 1 TON 4%4 CAB-WATER DEPT 13277.00 52595 CASEY ALEXANDER REFUNO-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 52596 KAREN ANDERSON REFUND-SEARCH & RESCUE CLASS 2.00 52597 KAREN ANDREWS REFUNO-BASEBALL CARD CLUB 4.00 52598 JANET BAILEY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 17.00 5 ' JUDY BARTZ REFUND-DAY CAMP 48.00 5 J THOMAS BECK REFUND-SKATING LESSONS 19.00 52601 FERN CARR REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 15.00 52602 JANICE CHAPIN REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 32.00 52603 MARY COOPER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 52604 LANA DUBE' REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 36.00 52605 PAM FRANDLE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 8.00 52606 LARRY FUGLESTEN REFUND-OIVING CLASS 22.00 52607 TRISH GRABAR REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 8.00 52608 BOBBI SUE GRAY REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 52609 PRATI PAHWA GUPTA REFUNO-SWIMMING LESSONS 38.00 52610 KRISTIN HUSMOE REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 52611 SHEILA JOHNSON REFUNO-CANOE LESSONS 10.00 52612 MARTIN KERN REFUND-STARING LAKE PARK BUILDING RENTAL 16.50 52613 LAURA LITTELL REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 13.00 52614 JACK MC CANN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 22.00 52615 SUSAN MIKELSON REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 36.00 52616 PENNY NEEDHAM REFUND-VALLEYFAIR TRIP 13.00 52617 COLLEEN OGRAM REFUNO-SWIMMING LESSONS 7.00 52618 OLYMPIC HILLS GOLF CLUB REFUND-STARING LAKE PARK BUILDING RENTAL 50.00 52619 CHERI PAULSEN REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 19.00 52620 GALE REINA REFUND-VALLEYFAIR TRIP 20.00 52621 JAYE REINERTSEN REFUND-VALLEYFAIR TRIP 18.00 52622 JANE SCHNEIDER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.50 52623 RENEE SCHOONOVER REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 20.00 52`"1 CAROLYN SHIELDS REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 14.50 3825518 /79 AUGUST 1.1989 52625 KATHY SCHWARTZ REFUND-PRESCHOOL PLAYGROUND 29.00 52626 LYNN SHIMOTA REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 8.00 52627 JOYCE SIEBURG REFUND-TENNIS LESSONS 16.00 5 '8 PAMELA SUBA REFUND-SWIMMING LESSONS 34.00 7 TERESA TAVOLACCI REFUND-AEROBICS CLASS 28.00 52630 SUE THOMPSON REFUND-GOLF LESSONS 8.00 52631 CROW WING COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 186.00 52632 GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURANCE CO PAYRDLL 7/7/89 436I.00 52633 GUARANTEE MUTUAL LIFE COMPANY JULY 89 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 2 194.76058 52634 HENN CTY SUPPORT & COLLECTION SER CHILD SUPPORT DEDUCTION 194.76 52635 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION PAYROLL 7/7/B9 52636 MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE JULY 89 DISABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUM 2535.222 52637 PEPPER'S SW GRILL EXPENSES-CITY HALL 52638 PETTY CASH EXPENSES-CITY HALL 65.46 52639 CITY-COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 7/7/89 1363.00 52640 INTL UNION OF OPERATING ENG JULY 89 UNION OUES 961.00 52641 MN TEAMSTERS CREDIT UNION PAYROLL 7/7/89 25.00 52642 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA AUGUST 89 LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM 99.00 52643 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-PERA PAYROLL 7/7/89 & 7/14/89 31271.41 52644 UNITED WAY PAYRDLL 7/7/89 246.50 52645 EAGLE WINE CO WINE 1517.66 52646 GRIGGS COOPER & CO INC LIQUOR 2I196.36 52647 JOHNSON BROS WHOLESALE LIQUOR LIOUOR 229I9.52 52648 PAUST1S & SONS CO WINE 224.68 52649 ED PHILLIPS & SONS CO WINE 15128.14 52650 PRIOR WIRE CO WINE 2918.14 52651 QUALITY WINE CO WINE 9388.23 52652 MINNESOTA TWINS BASEBALL CARD CLUB OUTING/FEES PAID 102.00 2.00 52653 STADIUM COMMISSION BASEBALL CARD CLUB OUTING/FEES PAID 50 1 ROD MACRAE PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 102.01 5- S UNIVERSAL TITLE -SECOND MORTGAGE MONEY & EARNST MONEY- 11200.00 SCATTERED SITE HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 52656 MINNESOTA TWINS TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM/FEES PAID 36.00 52657 METROPOLITAN STADIUM COMMISSION TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGRAM/FEES PAID 22.00 5265E APPLE RIVER CAMPGROUND -TUBE RENTAL DEPOSIT-TEEN VOLUNTEER 25.00 PROGRAM/FEES PAID 52659 MINNESOTA TWINS SPECIAL EVENTS/FEES PAID 120.00 52660 METROPOLITAN STADIUM COMMISSION SPECIAL EVENTS/FEES PAID 22.00 52661 A TO Z RENTAL CENTER -EQUIPMENT RENTAL-FACILITIES DEPT/WATER 109.18 DEPT 52662 AAA STRIPING SERVICE CO STREET STRIPING-STREET.DEPT 15948.44 52663 ACRO-MINNESOTA INC OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 334.32 52664 AIM ELECTRONICS INC SCOREBOARD REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 69.50 52665 AIRSIGNAL INC PAGER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER 116.60 52666 ALASKAN AIR CONDITIONING INC ICE MELTING SYSTEM REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 155.00 52667 AMERI-STAR LIGHTING LIGHT BULBS-COMMUNITY CENTER 16.36 52668 AMERICAN HEART ASSN MN AFFILIATE SUBSCRIPTION-HUMAN RESOURCES 10.00 57669 AMERICAN LINEN SUPPLY CO -UNIFORMS-WATER DEPT/BUILDING INSPECTIONS 697.06 -DEPT/FACILITIES DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER/ MATS-LIQUOR STORE 52670 EARL F ANDERSEN & ASSOC INC SIGNS/BRACKET-STREET DEPT 361.20 52671 ANDERSON'S GARDEN EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 20.97 52672 ARMOR SECURITY INC -REPAIR LOCK & CYLINGER/CAR WASH LEVER SET 565.13 -KNOB/KEYS-FACILITIES DEPT/PROGRAM SUPERVISOR 14890043 1199 AUGUST 1.1989 52673 ARTISANS INC -T-SHIRTS/AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND/TENNIS 628.52 LESSONS 52674 ROGER ATTANAS REFUND-OVERPAYMENT UTILITY BILLING 36.17 5 '5 ALLWEATHER ROOF ROOF REPAIR-SENIOR CENTER 208.98 6. 6 BALLOONS & STUFF OF MINNEAPOLIS I HELIUM TANKS-FIRE DEPT 111.00 52677 BAREFOOT GRASS LAWN SERVICE LAWN CARE-POLICE BUILDING 69.33 52678 BATTERY & TIRE WAREHOUSE INC -WIRE/BATTERIES/BEARINGS/SEALS/SIGNAL 547.71 SPARK PLUGS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52679 BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE-MCA TRAFFIC STUDY 1877.15 52680 BERGIN AUTO BODY -REPAIR & REFINISH POLICE VEHICLE- 231.00 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52681 BERRY COFFEE COMPANY SERVICE-CITY HALL 332.00 52682 BFI MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS SERVICE 105.00 52683 BIFFS INC WASTE DISPOSAL-PARK MAINTENANCE 3148.13 52684 BIG A AUTO PARTS -FILTERS/HEADLIGHTS/WIRE/TAPE/ADHESIVE/ 1224.84 -BRAKE PADS/SEALS/CLAMPS/MUD FLAPS/TRAILER CONNECTORS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52685 JAMES R BITTNER SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 90.00 52686 BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY -FILM/FILM PROCESSING-WATER DEPT/BUILDING 672.27 -INSPECTIONS DEPT/ASSESSING DEPT/POLICE -DEPT/OUTDOOR CENTER/FORESTRY DEPT/ PLANNING DEPT 526B7 C'TY OF BLOOMINGTON JUNE B9 ANIMAL IMPOUND SERVICE 788.00 52688 BMB SERVICES EXERCISE EQUIPMENT REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 191.65 52689 LOIS BOETTCHER -MINUTES-PARKS RECREATION & NATURAL 60.45 RESOURCES COMMISSION 52690 BOFFIN LIMITED CABLE-ENGINEERING DEPT 10.00 52691 BOUSTEAD ELECTRIC & MFG CO PARTIAL MOTOR-WATER DEPT 1283.07 52692 LEE BRANDT -SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID/EXPENSES- 265.00 UNCLE SAM-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 5.. .5 BRAUN ENG TESTING INC SERVICE-STARING LAKE PARK 2093.20 52694 BRISSMAN KENNEDY INC VACUUM CLEANER BAGS-FACILITIES DEPT 73.00 52695 BROCK WHITE PAINT-STARING LAKE PARK 692.50 52696 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC GRAVEL-STREET DEPT 54.49 52697 BUTLER PAPER COMPANY XEROX PAPER-CITY HALL 746.76 5269E C & N W TRANSP CO STORM SEWER RENTAL-DRAINAGE CONTROL 360.00 52699 CALC TYPE OFFICE EQUIPMENT CO TYPEWRITER RIBBON-FIRE DEPT 11.00 52700 CARDOX CORP CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 511.15 52701 MARTY CARRELLIUS MILEAGE-FORESTRY OEPT 53.50 52702 CASE POWER & EQUIPMENT CABLE-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 20.66 52703 CHEMLAWN LAWN CARE-WATER DEPT • 48.80 52704 CHEROKEE REFRIGERATION REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT & LICENSE 67.50 52705 CHUCKS BAGS UNLIMITED -10 EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICAN BAGS-FIRE 575.00 DEPT 52706 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE 2ND HALF OF JUNE B9 SALES TAX 10130.08 52707 COMMISSIDNER OF TRANSPORTATION MANUAL UPDATES-ENGINEERING DEPT 70.00 5270E COMPUTER PLACE COMPUTER REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 116.00 52709 CONCEPT MICROFILM INC MICROFILMING-ENGINEERING DEPT 2278.38 52710 CONTACT MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC RADIO REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 96.75 52711 CDNTECH CONST PRODUCTS INC CULVERTS-DRAINAGE CONTROL 300.56 52712 COPY EQUIPMENT INC -OFFICE SUPPLIES-ENGINEERING DEPT/PLANNING 269.41 DEPT 52713 CORPORATE RISK MANAGERS INC JULY 89 INSURANCE CONSULTANT 560.00 52714 CROWN FENCE & WIRE COMPANY 2 BACKSTOPS/WIRE-PARK MAINTENANCE 1574.00 52' ' CUSTOM FIRE APPARATUS INC THROTTLE CABLES-FIRE DEPT 121.90 3270491 l"3'u0 AUGUST 1.1989 52716 CUTLER-MAGNER COMPANY QUICKLIME-WATER DEPT 11705.47 52717 D & K PRINTING PLUS INC PRINTING-OUTDOOR CENTER/SENIOR CENTER 336.88 52718 DAKTRONICS INC SCOREBOARD REPAIR-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CTR 90.59 Eyr 9 DALCO -CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT/PARK 282.57 MAINTENANCE/COMMUNITY CENTER 52720 RICK DEATON 3 COOLERS-FIRE DEPT 111.27 52721 DECORATIVE DESIGNS JULY 89 SERVICE-CITY HALL 49.50 52722 DPC INDUSTRIES INC CHEMICALS-WATER DEPT 5311.20 52723 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 1184.61 52724 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-CITY HALL 148.84 52725 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 78.85 52726 DRISKILLS SUPER VALU -EXPENSES/CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES- 374.46 COMMUNITY CENTER 52727 EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY JUNE 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 816.02 52728 ECOLAB PEST ELIMINATION DIVISION JUNE & JULY 89 SERVICE-FIRE STATIONS 243.00 52729 ECONOMY SYSTEMS INC DICTAPHONE-PLANNING DEPT 229.43 52730 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-WATER DEPT 14.42 52731 E P PHOTO FILM/FILM PROCESSING-POLICE DEPT 87.26 52732 EDEN PRAIRIE SNOWDRIFTERS REIMBURSEMENT-STATE GRANT 238.87 52733 CITY OF EDINA JUNE 89 WATER TESTS-WATER DEPT 280.00 52734 DEB EDLUND MINUTES-PLANNING COMMISSION 125.00 52735 EGAN MCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS -SERVICE-GRAFFITI BRIDGE-TRAFFIC CONTROL 93.13 DEVICE 52736 DELMAR ENRICH REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT 15.00 52737 JOHN H EKLUND WASTE DISPOSAL-FORESTRY DEPT 175.00 32778 EMPRC CORPORATION CAR WASH REPAIR-POLICE BUILDING 57.50 52739 CHRIS ENGER JUNE & JULY 89 EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 403.75 52740 ENGINEEREO SYSTEMS INC GAS COMPUTER CARDS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 58.41 52741 STEVEN J ERICKSON REFUND-BUILDING PERMIT 15.00 5' ` JEFF ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 114.50 Si. RON ESS HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 80.00 52744 EXPRESS MESSENGER SYSTEMS INC POSTAGE-PLANNING DEPT 17.82 52745 THE FAMILY DIGEST ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORE 50.00 52746 J N FAUVER COMPANY HOSES-WATER DEPT 481.20 52747 FEIST BLANCHARD CO -DRAWER/BEARINGS/CABLE TIES/FLASHERS/WIRE/ 755.61 -U-JOINTS/SWITCHES/WIRED POLE KITS/ FUSEHOLDER KIT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52748 FINLEY BROS ENTERPRISES WIND SCREEN TIES/ALUMINUM TIES-PARK MAINT 136.00 52749 MILT FLOYD SQUARE DANCE INSTRUCTOR/FEES PAID 203.00 52750 FOUR STAR BAR & RESTAURANT SUPPLY SUPPLIES-LIQUOR STORES 1411.65 52751 FOX MCCUE & MURPHY 1988 AUDIT SERVICE • 8000.00 52752 G & K SERVICES -COVERALLS/TOWELS-WATER DEPT/PARK MAINT/ 525.41 LIQUOR STORE 52753 DARRELL GEDNEY HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 103.00 52754 GENERAL OFFICE PRODUCTS CO OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 103.00 52755 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP ALUMINUM STRIPS/PLUGS-FIRE DEPT 141.33 52756 GETTING TO KNOW YOU ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 99.00 52757 JOSEPH GLEASON HOCKEY & SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 287.50 52758 GOPHER OIL COMPANY HYDRAULIC OIL/LUBRICANT-WATER DEPT 546.70 52759 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL INC APRIL MAY & JUNE 89 SERVICE 440.00 ' 52760 W W GRAINGER INC -SWITCHES/TEMPERATURE GAUGES-FACILITIES 371.34 DEPT/FAN/-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52761 GTE SUN COMMUNITY DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 1572.48 52762 GUNNAR ELECTRIC CO INC -INSTALL ELECTRICAL SERVICE-FRANLO PARK 5690.00 IRRIGATION SYSTEM & WELL PUMP 4365557 /90/ AUGUST 1.1989 52763 HACH CO LAB SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 278.60 52764 ROBERT HANNON HOCKEY OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 163.00 52765 HARMON GLASS BACKSLIDER WINDOW & FRAME-WATER DEPT 214.00 5 -'6 HEIMARK FOODS CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 128.74 5 LAURIE HELLING MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 45.75 52768 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT -DISBURSEMENTS OF FORFEITURE FUNDS-POLICE 594.20 DEPT 52769 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEYS OFFICE -DISBURSEMENTS OF FORFEITURE FUNDS-POLICE 1782.67 DEPT 52770 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DISTRIBUTION OF BCA FUNDS 100.00 52771 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT JUNE 89 BOOKING FEE-POLICE DEPT 613.47 52772 HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS FILING FEE-ENGINEERING DEPT 170.50 52773 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER FILING FEE-PLANNING DEPT 340.00 52774 HENN CTY DEPT OF PROPERTY TAX POSTAGE-VOTER REGISTRATION VERIFICATIONS 57.75 52775 HENN CTY-SHERIFFS DEPT MAY 89 BOARD OF PRISONERS-POLICE DEPT 181.01 52776 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER LATH-PARK MAINT/SERVICE-PRAIRIE CENTER DR 6394.77 52777 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE SCHOOL-FIRE DEPT 1400.00 52778 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER -HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT-STREET DEPT/PARK 268.80 DEPT 52779 JDHN T HOBBS EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 134.11 52780 HOFFERS INC FIELD MARKING PAINT-PARE: MAINTENANCE 504.90 52781 HOLMSTEN ICE RINKS INC -COMPRESSDR MAINTENANCE-ICE ARENA- 110.00 CDMMUNITY CENTER 52782 HONEYWELL INC -2ND QUARTER 89 PLANT INSTRUMENTATION 3723.00 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-WATER DEPT 52783 HONEYWELL INC -HEATING;VENTILATING t AIR CONDITIONING 2037.50 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-WATER DEPT 52784 T S HOWARD COMPANY SPIRAL SLIDE-STARING LAKE PARK 1692.75 52785 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #272 -MAY & JUNE 89 JANITORIAL SERVICE-WATER 1243.08 -DEPT/EXPENSES-PARK MAINTENANCE/SENIOR CENTER 52786 INDUSTRIAL LIGHTING SUPPLY INC LIGHT BULBS-WATER DEPT 132.22 52787 INSPECTIONS INC ROOF REPAIR-SENIOR CENTER 1728.00 52788 INTL OFFICE SYSTEMS INC JULY 89 MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT-CITY HALL 176.46 52789 GARY ISAACS SDFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 390.00 52790 JERRY'S NEWMARKET EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 100.27 52791 CHRISTOPHER M JESSEN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 240.00 52792 JAIMS GLENN JOHNSON EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 79.58 52793 JUNKIN SAFETY APPLIANCE CO ALUMINUM POLES-FIRE DEPT 91.10 52794 JUSTUS LUMBER CO -TREATED TIMBERS/CLAMPS/PEGBOARDS/HARDWARE 81.77 CLOTH-WATER DEPT 52795 KAYE CORPORATION WEED TRIMMER STRING-PARK MAINTENANCE 39.71 52796 FAIRCHILD MARKETING ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 350.00 52797 1< & L TENT RENTAL INC STAGE/CANOPY/LIGHTING-JULY 4TH CELEBRATION 325.00 52798 JIM KILDAHL SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 195.00 52799 KILLMER ELECTRIC CD INC -REMOVE & REPLACE CONCRETE STREET LIGHT 590.42 POLE-STREET DEPT 52800 SCOTT A KIPP EXPENSES-PLANNING DEPT 11.50 52801 BRADLEY J KNUTSON SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 198.00 52802 JOHN KOEGL MOWING-CUMMINS GILL HOMESTEAD 30.00 52803 KOKESH ATHLETIC SUPPLIES INC PITCHERS PLATE/LINE CHALKER-PARK NAINT 291.75 52804 KRAEMER'S HOME CENTER -PIPE/COUPLINGS/WASHERS/NUTS & BOLTS/LAMPS/ 428.73 -BATTERIES/FLATWARE/HANGERS/SCREWS/PUMPS/ -STAPLES/MARKERS/STAPLE GUN/SEALS/HINGES- -WATER DEPT/BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT/ POLICE DEPT/FIRE DEPT/STREET DEPT 2765811 II':-, 52805 L LEHMAN & ASSOCIATES INC JUNE 89 LEGAL SERVICE-FLYING CLOUD LANDFIL 1121.52 52B06 ROBERT LAMBERT JULY 89 EXPENSES-PARKS & RECREATION DEPT 200.00 52807 LAND OF LAKES TILE CO -REPAIR LOOSE TILE-INDOOR POOL-COMMUNITY 1950.00 CENTER 52808 LANDLINE COMMUNICATION SERVICES I OXYGEN SENSOR-SEWER DEPT 131.50 5'P^9 LEEF BROS INC -COVERALLS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE/MATS- 136.30 LIQUOR STORE 5;b1O LINHOFF CORPORATE COLOR FILM PROCESSING-FORESTRY DEPT 62.50 52811 LIONS TAP EXPENSES-FIRE DEPT 38.43 52812 LOGIS MAY 89 SERVICE 7123.70 52813 LONG WOOD SERVICES TREE REMOVAL-FORESTRY DEPT 295.00 52814 LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE-PLANNING OEPT 49.00 52815 LOUISVILLE LANDFILL INC JUNE 89 WASTE OISPOSAL-STREET MAINTENANCE 55.65 52816 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT INC -BEARINGS/SEAL RINGS/CONVEYOR ROLLER- 444.71 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 528I7 MALIBU ENGRAVING-FIRE OEPT 125.00 52818 MAPCO SAND & GRAVEL CO ROCK-STARING LAKE PARK 121.00 52819 GEORGE MARSHALL SERVICE-PLEASANT HILL CEMETERY OPERATIONS 600.00 52820 MARSHALL & SWIFT BOOK-ASSESSING DEPT 49.00 52821 MASYS CORPORATION AUGUST 89 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE-POLICE DEPT 1295.00 52822 MBA DESKTOP PUBLISHING PLUS -PRINTING-RUSSIAN SOCCER PROCLAMATION- 76.48 RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 52823 MEDICAL OXYGEN & EQUIP CO OXYGEN-FIRE DEPT 101.30 52824 MEDIATECH SAFETY VIDEO-FIRE DEPT 9.95 52825 MEDICINE LAKE LINES BUS SERVICE-CIRCUS-TEEN VOLUNTEER PROGAM 79.00 52826 METRO PRINTING INC PRINTING FORMS-POLICE DEPT 153.00 52827 METRO SALES INC TONER-COMMUNITY CENTER 324.34 52828 METROPOLITAN kASTE CONTROL COMMIS AUGUST 89 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES 154033.51 52829 METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMIS JUNE 89 SAC CHARGES 45653.85 52830 KAREN MICHAEL EXPENSES/MILEAGE-HUMAN RESOURCES 37.29 52831 MIDLAND PRODUCTS CO -CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-ROUND LAKE PARK/ 638.36 COMMUNITY CENTER 5`.(' . MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP BLACKTOP-STREET MAINTENANCE 268.91 52833 MIDWEST LAWN SPRINKLERS SERVICE-FRANLO PARK IRRIGATION SYSTEM 2932.50 52834 MINNEAPOLIS POLICE DEPT -DISBURSEMENT OF FORFEITURE FUNDS-POLICE 594.20 DEPT 52835 MINNESOTA BLUEPRINT PRINTING-ENGINEERING DEPT/PLANNING DEPT 1002.24 52836 MINNESOTA COMMUNICATIONS CORP JULY 89 PAGER SERVICE-POLICE DEPT 82.00 52837 MN MUNICIPAL BEVERAGE ASSN DUES-LIOUOR STORES 335.00 52838 MN RECREATION & PARKS ASSN SOFTBALL STATE ENTRY-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 100.00 52839 MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSN BOOKS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 39.90 52840 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS AOVERTISING-LIOUOR STORES 335.00 52841 MINNESOTA WANNER CO 3 FOAM INJECTORS-FIRE DEPT 207.60 52842 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING FORMS-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 534.30 52843 MOTOROLA INC RADIO REPAIR-FIRE DEPT 550.66 52844 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO LAWN MOWER BLADE-PARK MAINTENANCE 146.41 52845 WM MUELLER & SONS INC SAND-STREET MA1NTENANCE/PARE: MAINTENANCE 81.27 52846 NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE FILM-POLICE DEPT 441.75 52847 NATL FIRE PROTECTION ASSN FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 18'61.40 52848 NATIONAL SCREENPRINT -T-SHIRTS-SOVIET SOCCER TEAM-RECREATION 222.00 ADMINISTRATION 52849 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO 2N0 QUARTER 89 SERVICE 62.46 52850 JP NOREX INC -SERVICE-IRONWOOD COURT/WATERMAIN REPAIR- 64149.77 MARTIN DRIVE 28885276 MO?, AUGUST 1.1989 52851 NORTH OAKS CONTRACTING INC REFUND-CONTRACTORS LICENSE 15.00 52852 NORTH STAR TURF INC WHEEL/SHAFT-PARK MAINTENANCE 49.23 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS/CORD-FIRE DEPT 619.00 51. .i NORTHWOOD GAS CO INC GAS CYLINDERS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 146.80 52855 PAPER WAREHOUSE -PAPER PLATES/CUPS/CLIPS/SKIRTING- 59.65 -HISTORICAL & CULTURAL COMMISSION/BANNER- AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 52856 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER STRESS TESTS-FIRE DEPT 1556.00 52857 PEVNWELL BOOKS BOOKS-FIRE DEPT 53.80 52858 PEPSI COLA COMPANY CONCESSION STAND SUPPLIES-COMMUNITY CENTER 851.50 52859 SANDRA KAY PERREAULT MILEAGE-POLICE DEPT 13.00 52860 I A PERRY ASSOCIATES INC -COOLING TOWER SPRAY PUMP REPAIR/METER 168.50 INSTALLED-POLICE BUILDING 5286! PERSONNEL POOL SERVICE-PLANNING DEPT 1039.03 52862 CONNIE L PETERS MILEAGE-COMMUNITY CENTER 19.00 52863 PICHA GREENHOUSE BEDDING PLANTS-PARK MAINTENANCE 12.00 52864 PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO GREASE SEAL/CAP/HUB & DRUM-EOUIPMENT MAINT 78.23 52865 PLYMOUTH SUPPLY COMPANY 12 PADLOCKS-PARK MAINTENANCE 91.12 52866 POMMER COMPANY INC TROPHIES-ORGANIZED ATHLETICS 35.00 52867 PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN -LAWN MOWER REPAIR-WATER DEPT/FILLER/ 517.36 COVERSiCIP-PARK MAINTENANCE 52868 PRAIRIE OFFSET PRINTING PRINTING-PLANNING DEPT 813.15 52869 PRINTING GALLEY INC ENVELOPES-CITY HALL 480.00 52870 PUMP & METERS SERVICE INC GAS PUMP REPAIR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 119.54 52271 QUALITY ROOTER SERVICE-LIQUOR STORE 38.60 52872 GEORGIA F QUIGGLE REFUND-BUILDING DEPOSIT 30.00 52873 RADIO SHACK TAPES-POLICE DEPT 64.90 52°i4 READY MADE SIGN CO SIGNS-WATER DEPT 79.42 RFG PET & SUPPLY CO CANINE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT 40.05 52bi6 RIEKE-CAP.ROLL-MULLER ASSOC INC -SERVICE-MITCHELL/RESEARCH ST IMPROVEMENTS 15493.26 -ROWLAND RD/OLD SHADY OAK RD FEASIBILITY -STUDY/HIDDEN GLEN NORTH 3RD ADDITION/ -GOLDEN TRIANGLE DRIVE EXTENSION/WYNDHAM CREST/COUNTY ROAD I WATERMAIN 52877 ROAD MACHINERY & SUPPLIES CO TACHOMETER-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 176.61 52878 ROAD RESCUE INC FIRST AID RESCUE EQUIPMENT-FIRE DEPT 548.31 52879 ROBOTRONICS INC BATTERIES-FIRE DEPT 105.00 52880 ROGER'S SERVICE CO PLATE ASSEMBLY-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 83.70 52881 ROLLINS OIL CO GAS-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 9385.17 52882 ST PAUL BOOK & STATIONERY CO -OFFICE SUPPLIES-POLICE DEPT/WATER DEPT/ 281.76 COMMUNITY CENTER 52883 SAFETY KLEEN CORP TOWELS-EQUIPMENT MAINT/PARK MAINT 123.00 52884 SALLY DISTRIBUTORS INC TOYS/GAMES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 60.30 ' 52885 SANCQ INC CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT 90.90 52886 THE SANDWICH FACTORY INC -EXPENSES-PARKS & RECREATION DEPT/HUMAN 121.60 RESOURCES DEPT 52887 DORVE SCHMIDT REFUND-BEER LICENSE 50.00 52898 GERALD MATHEW SCHWANK,L FIRE CAMS 62.00 52889 SEARS SCREWDRIVER-SEWER DEPT 30.14 52890 SETTER LEACH & LINDSTRDM INC SERVICE-COMMUNITY CENTER REPAIR 1652.82 52891 J L SHIELY COMPANY GRAVEL-WATER DEPT/STREET MAINTENANCE 317.84 52892 STEVEN R SINELL JULY 89 EXPENSES-ASSESSING DEPT 210.25 52893 W GORDON SMITH CO -CLEANING SUPPLIES/GAS/BULBS/HYDRAULIC OIL-, 4433.93 WATER DEPT/FIRE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52. 4 SIMON LADDER TOWERS INC -2ND PARTIAL PAYMENT ON LADDER TRUCK-FIRE 161272.00 DEPT 20148847 52895 SNAP ON TOOLS CORP -HANDLE/HDDK/HAMMER/IMPACT GUN/FILE/OIL- 296.55 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52896 SNYDER DRUG STDRES INC EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 5.37 52897 SOUTHDALE YMCA -2ND QUARTER 89 SERVICE-YMCA YOUTH 2625.00 DUTREACH PROGRAM 5( d SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC EMPLOYMENT ADS-COMMUNITY CENTER 68.85 52899 SDUTHWEST SUBURBAN PUBLISH INC -LEGAL ADS-PLANNING DEPT/POSTAGE- 1583.58 HISTORICAL & CULTURAL CDMMISSION 52900 STAR TRIBUNE SUBSCRIPTION-FIRE DEPT 70.20 52901 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRIBUTION OF BCA FUNDS 50.00 52902 STATE OF MINNESOTA -DISTRIBUTION DF FDRFEITURE FUNDS-PDLICE 1782.65 DEPT 52903 STATE TREASURER JUNE 89 BUILDING SURCHARGE 6080.17 52904 STANDARD SPRING CO FRONT END ALIGNMENT-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 141.10 52905 STREICHERS PROFESSIONAL POLICE EO -TRAFFIC VESTS/TRAFFIC WANDS/HEADLIGHT 509.55 -FLASHER/BRACKET-PDLICE DEPT/EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 52906 STRGAR ROSCOE FAUSCH INC -JUNE 89 SERVICE-DELL RD/SCENIC HEIGHTS 4931.76 ROAD STUDY 52907 SULLIVANS SERVICES INC WASTE DISPOSAL-OUTDOOR CENTER 62.14 52908 SUPERIOR PRDDUCTS 12 BEER KEG PUMPS-LIQUOR STORE 299.66 52909 NATALIE SWAGGERT JULY 89 EXPENSES-HUMAN RESOURCES DEPT 200.00 52910 SYSTEMS CDNTRDL SERVICES REPAIR WELL CONTROLS-WATER DEPT 70.88 52911 TARGET STDRES -EXPENSES-AFTERNOON ADVENTURE/JULY 4TH 96.61 CELEBRATIDN 52912 TAYLOR SALES INC ICE CREAM MACHINE REPAIR-COMMUNITY CENTER 110.75 52913 TIERNEY BROTHERS INC -DFFICE SLIPPLIES-PLANNING DEPT/PARKS & 364.78 RECREATIDN DEPT/COMMUNITY CENTER 52914 NANCY TOUVE SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 405.00 52015 TRIARCD ARTS & CRAFTS INC MARKERS-NEIGHBORHODD OUTREACH PROGRAM 6.16 E( TURNOUIST PAPER �O CLEANING SUPPLIES-FACILITIES DEPT 213.60 52'7,7 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO ACETYLENE/REGULATOR-EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 178.10 52918 THE US FIGURE SKATING ASSN BADGES-ICE ARENA-COMMUNITY CENTER 265.25 52919 UNLIMITED SUPPLIES INC WASHERS/NUTS/BDLTS/SCREWS-EQUIPMENT MAINT 145.70 52920 USA TDDAY ADVERTISING-LIQUOR STORES 34.00 52921 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PROPANE INC GAS CYLINDERS-COMMUNITY CENTER 113.74 52922 ALVIN VAN HORN SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID 52.50 52923 VAN 0 LITE INC 3 CHARGERS-POLICE DEPT 253.50 52924 VAUGHN DISPLAY FLAG REPAIR-POLICE DEPT 17.63 52925 VESSCO INC FREIGHT CHARGES-WATER DEPT 53.66 52926 KEITH WALL JULY 89 EXPENSES-POLICE DEPT 200.00 52927 VICOM INC -AUGUST 89 WIRE MAINTENANCE-PUBLIC WORKS 12.25 -BUILDING/JULY 89 WIRE MAINTENANCE- COMMUNITY CENTER 52928 VIKING LABDRATORIES INC CHEMICALS-POOL OPERATION-COMMUNITY CENTER 892.83 52929 SANDRA F WERTS MILEAGE-SENIOR CENTER 83.90 52930 WEST WELD EQUIPMENT REPAIR-PARK MAINTENANCE 130.18 52931 WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS TREATED LUMBER-DRAINAGE CDNTROL 512.00 52932 DAVID WHITEFDRD -SOFTBALL OFFICIAL/FEES PAID/MILEAGE- 470.00 COMMUNITY CENTER 52933 THE WDRK CDNNECTION SERVICE-STREET DEPT 648.00 52934 WORLD WIDE GAMES GAMES-AFTERNOON PLAYGROUND 69.40 52935 JIM ZAIC EXPENSES-BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT 15.00 52936 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID SUPPLIES-WATER DEPT 13.45 J '545 M(S AUGUST 1.1989 51827 VOID OUT CHECK 5-''9 V0I0 OUT CHECK, 35.00- i VOID OUT CHECK 5647.00- 52304 VOID OUT CHECK 3I08.00- 52308 VOID OUT CHECK 238.00- 52462 VOID OUT CHECK 71.69- 52477 VOID OUT CHECK 35.00- 52485 VOID OUT CHECK 1465.00- 52493 VOID OUT CHECK. 925.62 52502 VOID OUT CHECK. I664.2$- 1456.26- -1464603 $927632.75 i 1906 DISTRIBUTION BY FUNDS GENERAL 280156.56 1_ CERTIFICATE OF INDEBT 253.50 15 LIOUOR STORE-P V M 48273.51 17 LIOUOR STORE-PRESERVE 46860.01 20 CEMETERY OPERATIONS 600.00 31 PARK ACOUIST °. DEVELOP 13182.02 73 UTILITY BOND FUND 616.09 39 86 FIRE STATION CONST 161891.00 51 IMPROVEMENT CONST FD 27066.31 73 WATER FUND 127767.21 77 SEWER FUND 203140.64 80 POLICE CONFISCATED FUNDS 4903.72 81 TRUST F,: ESCROW FUND 2116.02 87 CDBG FUND 11206.16 $927672.75 i9o1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson SUBJECT: 1990 Property Tax Levy ��✓✓ DATE: July 27, 1989 To be delicate about it, the Legislature, the Governor, and the Minnesota Department of Revenue have made the preparation of the City's 1990 budget both confusing and challenging. At the very end of the 1988 session, legislators enacted major changes in property tax laws which brought the concepts of the tax capacity, tax capacity rates, transition aid, and truth-in-taxation into the lexicon of public finance in Minnesota. Many requirements under the new scheme of things were admittedly unworkable, and the 1989 Legislature adopted several new provisions to correct these deficiencies in the 1989 Omnibus Tax Bill. Legisators also included several items which would provide some "property tax relief" and would limit the financial flexibility of cities. Governor Perpich vetoed this bill. While everyone was preparing to do 1990 budgets with the new rules in the 1989 bill, the Governor's veto kept the rules in the 1988 legislation in effect. The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Revenue believed he found a provision in the 1988 law which allowed him to create by administrative authority a new timetable for budget processes and decisions on tax levies. This new timetable has been issued, and dates he has established for certain actions are later than those specified in the 1988 statute. Questions have been raised whether the Commissioner's interpretation is legitimate. The League of Minnesota Cities is seeking a judicial ruling on this matter. If a city relies on the Commissioner's schedule and the Court determines that this schedule is invalid, any person would have recourse to challenge a city for not complying with the letter of the 1988 law. Taken to the extreme, such an action could result in a city's 1990 tax levy being frozen at its 1989 level. Consequently, the League has recommended that cities minimize their risks by doing their best to comply with the law now in effect. The "truth-in-taxation" process contained in the 1988 law was designed to make taxpayers more aware of the taxation practices of their local units of government. Two key dates for action are identified: August 1 - The City certifies an "initial proposed levy" to the County Auditor. August 15 - The City certifies its "final proposed levy" to the County Auditor. This levy becomes the maximum dollar amount for the City's property tax. Subsequent budget deliberations may lower the tax levy; however, they may not result in the property tax being above this amount. /4,9b - 2 - The effect of truth-in-taxation is to make local budget preparation even more conservative: in order to maintain flexibility and some measure of financial safety, estimates of the amount of tax revenue needed should be overstated. Budget discussions would result in decisions to establish a level of taxation which probably would have been expected anyway. Unfortunately, the legislation contains built-in incentives to approach the property tax levy less-than-realistically during city budget preparation. In order to comply with the letter of the law, staff recommends that the Council adopt resolutions on August 1 and August 15 for the property tax levy certifications. The Council can maintain maximum flexibility by adopting the maximum property tax levy permitted within statutory levy limts. Staff has calculated this levy based on our interpretation of the levy limit regulations and our estimates of population (37,880) and household (14,692). The official population and household figures used by the Minnesota Department of Revenue are prepared by the Metropolitan Council; preliminary estimates by the Metropolitan Council are not available even at this time. The following table illustrates the City's property tax levies as compared to the amount which could be raised under the current levy limit statute: Levy Levy Limit 1989 $9,181,000 $10,779,000 1990 1 12,680,000 Preliminary budget work indicates a probable recommended property tax levy around $10 million based on current budget policies. The whole issue of property taxes has a great level of uncertainty about it. Supposedly, a special session of the Legislature will be called by Governor Perpich for September. There is some doubt whether the special session will occur. Observers believe that the property tax bill which will be adoptd by the Legislature will be substantially the same as the one vetoed by the Governor. If so, timetables would be relaxed but levy limits would be tightened. Still, the Governor's administration has not issued its proposal for the property tax bill for the special session. About the only things certain are existence of the 1988 law and the need for the City to maintain the maximum amount of flexibility allowed within that law. The $12,680,000 levy is an amount the City could not exceed in any event. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council adopt Resoluton No. 89- 172 to certify the initial proposed property tax levy for 1990 to be $12,680,000 and to transmit this levy figure to the Hennepin County Auditor. CWD:jdp it lt39 RESOLUTION NO. 89-172 A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE INITIAL PROPOSED 1990 PROPERTY TAX LEVY BY THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE WHEREAS, the Minnnesota Legislature enacted a law in 1988 which specified a "truth-in-taxation" process to be followed by cities for the purpose of establishing property tax levies for the next fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the statute requires that the City Council certify an initial proposed property tax levy by August 1; and WHEREAS, the City of Eden Prairie has undertaken preparation of its 1990 Budget and identified the need to levy property taxes; and WHEREAS, statutory levy limits contain conditions and formulae to determine the maximum amount of dollars which may be levied for property tax collections, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie that it certify an initial proposed 1990 property tax levy of $12,680,000, an amount equal to the City's property tax levy limit, AND FURTHER, that this figure be transmitted to the Hennepin County Auditor. ADOPTED by the City Council August 1, 1989. Mayor Gary D. Peterson ATTEST: John D. Frane City Clerk T1� 27- ORDINANCE NO. 89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 9, SECTION 9.40 RELATING TO THE DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 AND SECTION 9.99, WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONTAIN PENALTY PROVISIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Chapter 9, Section 9.40 shall be and is amended to read as follows: "SECTION 9.40. FIREARMS REGULATION. Subd. 1. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby found and declared that inasmuch as the City is a developing community wherein the land uses are becoming more intense thus reducing the amount of open land available for the discharge of firearms and dangerous weapons and that it has become necessary to limit the discharge of firearms and dangerous weapons to certain areas in the community in which it will not pose a hazard to the safety of others. Subd. 2. Definitions. Terms used in this Section shall have the following meanings: A. "Approved Archery Ranges" means those ranges which have been approved by the City Manager or designee where special target-tipped arrows are used. B. "Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm, or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm. C. "Discharge of firearms" means any shooting whether it be for hunting game, target practice or otherwise. D. "Shotgun shotshell" means a shell fired in a shotgun containing multiple shot. -1- 1A',{ E. "Shotgun slug" means a shell fired in a shotgun containing one slug, ball, or other single projectile. Subd. 3. Permit Required for Discharge of Firearms or Dangerous Weapons. No person may fire or discharge a firearm or discharge or use any dangerous weapon within the City without first securing a permit to do so from the City. A. Areas Where Permitted. A permit may be granted to discharge firearms or dangerous weapons only in the following areas: (1) In that part of the City West of a line parallel to and 2500 feet West of the East line of Section 34, Township 116, Range 22 ("Line A"), and South of a line commencing at the intersection of Riverview Road and Line A and extending westerly along Riverview Road to its intersection with Highway 169/212 and continuing westerly along said Highway 169/212 to the easterly line of Hennepin County and there terminating. (2) At approved archery ranges. (3) In areas approved by the City Manager or designee where the issuance of a permit is for the purpose of wildlife management and is in the best interest of public safety. B. Application For Permit. A permit may be issued to individuals who comply with the following criteria: (1) Persons over eighteen (18) years of age may apply for an individual permit to discharge a firearm or dangerous weapon. Persons under eighteen (18) years of age may apply for a permit to discharge a firearm or dangerous weapon if at the time of such discharge or use, the youth is accompanied by an adult parent or legal guardian. -2- (2) An application for a permit shall be filed in writing on forms provided by the City and accompanied by a fee determined by City Council resolution. No fee shall be required for a landowner or his immediate family to discharge a firearm or dangerous weapon on property owned by himself. (3) The application shall include at least the following information: a) Type of firearm or dangerous weapon to be discharged. b) Location of the property on which the discharge of the firearm or dangerous weapon will occur. c) The permission and signature of the landowner on whose property the discharge of the firearm or dangerous weapon will occur. d) Such other information as may be deemed necessary by the City Manager or designee in order to pass upon such application. C. Limitations on Permits. Permits issued for the discharge of firearms or dangerous weapons shall be subject to the following limitations: (1) The property upon which the discharge will occur shall be at least forty (40) contiguous acres. (2) The holder of a permit shall not discharge a shotgun slug within fifteen hundred (1500 feet) of a building, Highway 169/212 or Riverview Road. (3) Permits issued for the discharge of firearms or dangerous weapons shall be limited to the use of bows and arrows, B-B guns, shotgun shells, and shotgun slugs. L3 3- (4) Permits issued for the discharge of shotgun slugs shall be limited to those times permitted for hunting deer by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Permits issued for the discharge of other dangerous weapons shall be restricted to the calendar year during which the permit was issued. Subd. 4. Cancellation of Permit. Repeated violations of the provisions of this Section or any permit issued hereunder on any property for which the permit has been issued may result in the cancellation of all permits for the discharge of weapons or firearms on such property and the denial of applications for permits on such property. Subd. 5. Lawful Defense of Person, Property or Family. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit any firing of a gun, pistol or other weapon when done in lawful defense of person, property or family or by law enforcement personnel executing their official duties. Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" and Section 9.99 entitled "Violation A Misdemeanor" are hereby adopted in their entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1989, and finally read and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1989. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1989. �7�u -4- New Concept Homes July 26, 1989 ----- -.. Different... by design! City of Eden Prairie Carl Jullie, City Manager 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Re: Proposed Hunting Ordinance Dear Mr.Jullie: As a follow up to my July 1 1, 1989 memo to you and our conversations since, I am write this letter to clarify that we are not against the proposal hunting ordinance; but, rather favor the ordinance for the long term objective of limiting hunting to the river bottoms. When the issue of hunting restrictions came up a year ago at a Council meeting where Captain Jim Clark was given direction by the Council to come up with a long term solution, I discussed the transition of that long term solution with Captain Clark as it related directly to properties we own in Southwest Eden Prairie. As part of the discussion that night and a follow up discussion on July 12, 1989 with Captain Clark, I requested that we be allowed to only small game hunt in the area of Rice Marsh Lake on the properties which we own. I had indicated to him that we would fully cooperate with his department so there would not be any addtional burden on the department in the management of the hunting area.Specifically, I mentioned to Captain Clark that we would make sure that one of the owners, including myself, would be on the property each morning and each evening to confront any unauthorized hunting. Mr.George Schroers lives on the property and would watch the property during the day. Captain Clark indicated to me that he could not endorse my proposal,but he indicated he wanted to be fair and would listen to any proposal directed by the council in our regards. Specifically, my request is that we be allowed to hunt water fowl and pheasants only on the two farms which we own adjacent to Rice March Lake. Further,we would work with Captain Clark and provide him with the assurances that we would have a person on the property to prevent unauthorized hunting. The area around Rice Marsh Lake on the two farms which we own, including most of Ike lake bottom isstili a very isolated ((( ) 10340 VIKING DR., SUITE 120, EDEN PRAIRIE,MN 55344 (612)944-2221 141S area and hunting would not impact on any Eden Prairie neighborhoods. Isolated Metro areas are exactly the type of areas where the Minnesota D.N.R.encourges hunting for management of the rapid growing goose population. To that end,it seems to me that hunting should be encouraged in those areas where no negative or detrimental impacts on adjacent neighborhoods will be experienced. Lastly, the far west end of Rice Marsh Lake,which is in the City of Channhassen,is an area which both the Minnesota D.N.R,&City of Channhassen allow hunting. In summary, I support Captain Clark's postion of a long term hunting ordinance restricted to the Minnesota bottoms;and,I am requesting, as indicated above,that we be given permission during only this transition year to hunt with the specific type of hunting restrictions listed above. Sincerely, *-101 Robert'Ejorklund President Map Enclosed } nib W l it ill ,�J • t-�I {rATE J= NwT y0. jp. 44:..;..‘1_21wAl:..: __ i ... ,..., Jl, MITCHELL Q,\,... li ' :•• { is '. �_J i LAKE ��. .tom (',� _/�— 7 r / SCENIC oits RICE ✓ i �I ! I ,- /twHSN C / C AKK6 '^- ._�%CLr �^ i i� � �� �, RED Ji 1 - J /_. ROCK I --) LAKE 4. f, �` \; {I• z f} _. ; y LAKE o 1 ♦ 1 ` .I iii �, / v if-, •, : tW F w7 RILEY f_ , '0 I •"v_ j► . I.' ,;-\„,„,,. . "...- ,,;* '\- ' 2, --'-.,,0 ,N'' \ 4/.1 g �' i-.. ',..-“,-,.,_lam \ ••,, .,,,,,,... . -� z ,,,,., .. t '41:0( • y+ ,1,-,-,7, 7417.,' - � it���e4 �� I 1)t i ten. „ff \\, L g i ' i, ( r. r d � � p 1 o )i -L. `-: CI E E��-i . /� { � '; KEY I � mu NaJ°4 � �'--' ('� 'i�t��- `l.l� I' fir..\ WATENSNED A•ED ')7 ��M_/� I 1 _. q „ SILL,, n �� C11LYf11TfWE11 IL)I') ORDINANCE NO. 89 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2.02, SUBD. 2 TO CHANGE THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE MAYOR FROM TWO (2) YEARS TO FOUR (4) YEARS AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CITY CODE CHAPTER 1. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: Section 1. City Code Chapter 2, Section 2.02, Subd. 2 shall be and is amended to read as follows: "Subd. 2. TERMS AND TRANSITION. Two (2) Councilmen shall be elected for four (4) year terms at each biennial City election commencing in 1974. The Mayor shall be elected for a four (4) year term commencing with the City election in 1990". Section 2. City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions Applicable to the Entire City Code Including Penalty for Violation" is hereby adopted in its entirety, by reference, as though repeated verbatim herein. Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage and publication. FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eden Prairie on the day of , 1989, and finally read and adopted—TE3 ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City on the day of , 1989. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Published in the Eden Prairie News on the day of , 1989. 1 Nit-IC) CONTENTS VARIANCE REQUEST #89-31 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW PACKET 1. Clayton Freeburg appeal letter dated 7-17-89 2. Notice of Public Hearing - variance request #89-31 3. Board of Adjustments and Appeals staff report dated 7-7-89 (includes planning staff reports dated 6-10-89 and 5-19-89) 4. Unapproved Board of Adjustment and Appeals minutes dated 7-13-89 5. Variance application 6. Final Order #89-31 7. Memorandum to City Council dated 7-17-89 8. Approved Planning Commission minutes dated May 22, 1989 ! �"L! °o y r 0 c( 7 : o_o. < d A v- . S h e � �}.- 2L S / ( f Ovit) �y •frt '1 -z • is cfr13/2 r4-7/ v c L- l/ -0 i_6(4-i, , f �-� p ►z c �.L s. (3 ' ( 19a C C CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING VARIANCE REQUEST 889-31 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments will meet at the following time and places: • 7:30 PM Thursday, July 13 1989 At the Council Chambers, 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie City Hall, Eden Prairie, MN 55344 • • to review and consider the variance request #89-31, submitted by Cla ton Freeburg for property located at 7010 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota legally described as: See reverse side. The re lest is for a variance from Cit Code, hapter 1= ction 11 '3•u5Tyision 6. �y . acres ermit ro osed Tract B at , To Permit d Trathlract A atc ha res acres; ermit ro ose Tract C at 0.$3 acres. itY o e re uires a minimum lot size.a widtTt the buila acre of o permit ro with a ract iwith a widin line of Z70'—— ermit ro osehTract B a WWI' at the ermit-Tract C with a width at t e uilding iine -r9'- ity Code re uired a minimum wi3th at the uil7cing Tirte of 300 . ro2ose�d Tract with as minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark at To ermit ode ere uires 15Os— City -q-- -T eFmit ro os�Lot C with a bull Th setE ck�,S' from the Ordinary —R"iah Water Mark. City Code re uiresTbO= septic s stems on ro osed tracts A and wit in To ermit exiWater aM rk. Code re ires a o t e -Ord nar Water froPosseed tract 8 within"1W'sofbthe�Ordinar�w ter�Mark. Cityan ode ereiuiresurt0'n L1 �o 221.711.an exi IIE accessory structure on ro osed Tract C with' the Ordinar Water Mark. City Code re uires 50'. in 50' of w h of roots a on a ublic street o 0 in, TO-Permit ro osed t g erode Cha ter ection� r.�ity Code re uires ', 9 Citv without frontsge on a ublic street. City Code vo iresrTZ to rmro eit ritesstoo is e-fronts on a ub ilc street.. Written or oral comments relating to this variance request will be heard at this meeting. Said variance application is on file for public review at the Planning Department at Eden Prairie City Hall. Published in the Eden Prairie News June 28, 1989 and July 5, 1989 City of Eden Prairie /9a2 Page 6 • _EOng� c ' / c/}(,s 5%RfF gtp&r 7-719 G. Variance request #89-31 to review and consider the variance request #89-31, submitted t� Clayton Freeburg for property located at 7010 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie. Minnesota legallyaescribed as 3 reverse side. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 1s Section-1.50, Subdivision 6. 1:To permit proposed Tract A iL .06 acres: permit proposed Tract B at 1.19 acres; permit ro osed Tract C at 0.81 acres. City Code requires W-7i acre minimum lot 2-8-617 size. o permit proposed�ract A with a width at the EuTTUTng line of permit proposed Tract B with a width at the building line of 270' permit Tract C with a width at the buildin line of 1937 City Code required a minimum width at the building Tine of '. ( ) to permit proposed Tract B with as minimum width at the Ordinary High Water Mark at TOT. City Code requires 150' 21 To permit proposed Lot C with a buildin setback 75' from the Ordinary—UT WaterMark. City Code requires—TUC'. To permit s on proposed tracts A and C within—TOO' of the.Ordinary�HighgWatericMark.syst Code requires a 100' setback. (6) To permit an existing tennis court on proposed tract B wit1T 150' of the Ordinary Water Mark. City Code requires 150'. El To permit an existin accessory structure on .ro.osed Tract C within 1 00' of the Ordinary Water ar . City Code requires 13U', with lot frontage on a public street of 7bv-City Code r To equires eriit ro'o. 9TraCit Code,Chapter 12,. 3-ection 12.30, Subdivision 12 to permit proposed tract A and C without frontage on a public street. City Code requires properites to have frontage on a public street. Background The property under variance request consideration is located adjacent to Bryant dividingLake at he end Willow ofoneparcel ofprop Creek oat The ertyntohreelots. Two mehouses ocurrently cexist on the property. The division will create two lots for each of the existing homes (proposed Tracts A and C) and one lot for construction of a new single family home (proposed Tract B). History on the site is extensive and is ouitlined in the Planning Staff Report dated June 10, 1988. For history on this site, you are directed to read the attached Planning Staff Reports dated June 10, 1988 and May 19, 19B9. (Note Exhibits D1 and D2). The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed registered land survey with identified variances at its May 22, 19B9 meeting. The City Council reviewed and approved the registered land survey with identified variances at its June 20, 1989 meeting. Variances Several variances are associated with this registered land survey and are identified individually below. Shoreland Variances 1. Lot Size - The City Code requires a lot size of five acres for lots within the shoreland area not having City sewer. The parcels proposed are not significantly inconsistent with the adjacent lots abutting Bryant Lake. The lot sizes would exceed code if sewer was available to the site. r, - t 1 1 ��/ : "':'j P.COW Cf-lppti14.5 Page 7 STry f f'acfcAr fYr1 P 7-7-89 2. Width at the Building Line - The City Code requires a width at the building line of 300' for those lots within the shoreland area not having City sewer. The parcels proposed are not significantly inconsistent with the adjacent lots. 3. Lot Width at Ordinary High Water Mark - The City Code requires a lot width at the Ordinary High Water Mark (O.H.W.M.) of 150' for those lots within the shoreland area not having City sewer and water. Proposed tract B will have a lot width at the O.H.W.M. of BO'. 4. Building Setback - City Code requires septic systems to be setback 100' from the 0.H.W.M. Proposed Tract C has an existing home which was constructed in 1975 and is located 75' from the 0.H.W.M. This variance may ._have merit because the existing building which was constructed prior to 1982 when the shoreland code was adopted. This variance is not created by the R.L.S. 5. Septic System Setback - City Code requires septic systems to be setback 100' from the 0.H.W.M. The existing septic systems on Tracts A and C are within 100' of the 0.H.W.M. Both systems are approximately 70' from the 0.H.W.M. The septic system on Tract C was approved in September of 1975. No permit information exists for the system on Tract A. If the Board approves the variances, the following condition should be included: If the septic systems fail on Tract A or C they must be relocated to meet current minimum State Standards. This variance is not created by the R.L.S. 6&7.Setback, Accessory Structures - City Code requires a 100' setback for all structures. Tract C has an existing screen house within 100' of the 0.H.W.M. Tract B has an existing tennis court within 100' of the 0.H.W.M. These structures are in existence and are not created by the R.L.S. 8. Lot Frontage - City Code Chapter 11 requires Tract B to have 90' of frontage on a public right-of-way. The current frontage available measures 70' and cannot be increased due to existing land ownership. 9. Lots Without Frontage - Proposed traets A and C will not have frontage on a public street as required by code. The tracts will be serviced by private easements. The topography is not condusive to installation of a road bed. This variance may have merit in that topographical features and tree loss is negated. Conclusion (Summary from Planning Staff Report dated May 19, 1989.) Based on the current analysis, it appears that the proposed subdivision would not be significantly out of character with what is existing in the adjacent neighborhood. Staff has indicated that if the proper procedures had been followed in the early 1970's, this project could have been approved without variances except for lot frontage. Currently, the majority of the variances being requested are Shoreland Ordinance which would be required of any lot located along Willow Creek Drive. Information which has been submitted including the grading plan and tree inventory has indicated that the proposal would not seriously alter the natural characteristics of the site or shoreland iga�l Q1 WA cf Welts 5 11fP Page 8 rOcKT ado 7-7-S1 area other than that expected with the construction of a single family home. The variance requested are numerous but may have merit based on the following: A. This Registered Land Survey has been proposed since the early 1970's, but has not been approved due to legal opinions which needed to be satisfied. A majority of the variances would not have been required if approved prior to 1982. B. The proposed subdivision is not out of character with the adjacent properties already in existence. C. The property and surrounding properties are zoned R1-22, but are without City sewer and water. Without City sewer and water, the Rural zoning classification 'was utilized in reviewing the subdivision. However, this R.L.S. as well as adjacent properties do not meet any of the shoreland requirements for lots without City sewer and water. With City sewer and water variances for lot size, lot width at the building line and lot width at the 0.H.W.M. would not be needed. The Planning Commission and City Council approved the Registered Land Survey with knowledge that variances are required. The Board may choose one of the following options: 1. Approve variance request #89-31 as submitted finding: 1. The Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed and approved the Registered Land Survey. 2. The property sizes are not significantly inconsistent with adjacent properties. 3. Variances for the existing structures and septic systems are not created by the R.L.S. 4. The variances for lots without frontage are granted in an effort to lessen topographical and tree removal. Condition: Should septic systems fail on Tracts A and C, the new septic systems must meet minimum State Standards. 2. Deny variance request #89-31. 19a5 C C STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THROUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning , DATE: June 10, 1988 PROJECT: Freeburg/Perkins Addition LOCATION: 7010 Willow Creek Road APPLICANT: Clayton Freeburg FEE OWNER: Raymond Freeberg, Raynelle Perkins, and Clayton Freeburg REQUEST: Registered Land Survey of 2.84 acres into three lots with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Ba;: rreiydt ground • \ { r ��` ed on e • r 1 T \\`' the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide tr:.1 r Plan for Low Density Residential 1 . ,.;. 9 land uses. Surrounding designations k' . , ,r. ; to the north, south, and east are ; "' ! , also for Low Density Residential. fl ".r ) , 1: ,•i'' ;` i Bryant Lake, classified as a : i . ,' ' Recreational Development Water, is r + p.. h:� ' -.:.M'• 1 —• tt1--,7� • _ �"1. located to the south and west of the i ' '> 71. `�" —..1 subject property. Specific land :, `I 1; • .'PROPOSED SITE (+++ uses in this area include the Willow � tC1, t ' 2 tir t(. Creek Addition, zoned R1-22 to the 'A\ Me " ,;;��. .. j •i' east and south, and R.L.S. A875 and ~J .��4�'. 4: .:_ R.L.S. 41421, zoned R1-22 to the - .* �. � •rt' north. The proponent is requesting -�'\▪`. •. , `' T.rc !' an R.L.S: to divide the property \ .� * F'y � >> rr into three single family lots to •s�„� , �• ' ;ram ,x roe; • . / t„ allow for the construction of one 5`°Ipy}=Y r'•• `„ lye /• MI/ i, single family home. H. , -''� ; " �+'y,� History 5 r;,r-�. a'r. 'w a The following is a brief history of \`.� r � '`er 4k il t ii• 1the Freeburg/Perkins property and __ ___OFC 1•-:1201�,$tq'A �.� i their involvement with the City of x�::;�;- fl/ <<j 1-:: Eden Prairie and Hennepin County C '�G-SEA� leading to the court judgement of ` '°` l t May 13, 1977: • • nor-%� i, �;s3 i • AREA LOCATION MAP ' 'aR(ra EXtlierr Di (— Freeburg/Perkins Addition 2 June 10, 1988 1) July 25, 1973 - City Assessor with written administrative approval divide the Freeburg/Perkins land into 3 lots designated parcels A, B, and C. No • Notice of Application for the division or of a hearing on the application was ever published or served upon anyone having an interest in the lots in Willow Creek subdivision or other nearby properties. Nor was any hearing held. The division was not approved by the City Council. - 2) Deeds dated August 14 1973, indicate conveyance of Parcel 8 to Raynelle Perkins and Parcel C to Clayton Freeburg. Deeds denied by Hennepin County Registrar of Titles. 3) Building permit issued April 74, for Parcel B. 4) A ril 30, 1974, Council adopted a resolution dividing the Freeburg/Perkins and into two lots without making findings supporting the granting of a variance. No published or mailed Notice of Hearing had previously been given. 5) On an unknown date following April 30, 1974, City executed R.L.S. 1371. Two tracts, A and 8, were created. 6) June June 25, 974, - City Council rescinded its resolution of April 30, 1974, dividing the Freeburg/Perkins property into two lots and adopted the following motion: That a new resolution be formed denying the request for division into 3 lots and approving the division into 2 lots, both fronting on the public road. • 7) July 9, 1974 - City Council adopted a resolution denying subdivision of the Freeburg/Perkins property into 3 lots but approving a 2-lot subdivision. B) July 12, 1974 - Stop on building permit. 9) May 27, 1975 - City Council approved a division of Freeburg/Perkins property into two lots. No notices were mail»d or variances given. The court, on May 13, 1977, found that action taken on May 27, 1975, was not in accordance with City Ordinances and invalid. The following are the court's Conclusions Of Law: 1) Freeburg property is not subject to any private restriction requiring lot size to be not less than 1 acre. 2) The Freeburg/Perkins property has not been subdivided by valid municipal action. In summary, the court judgement dated May 13, 1977, declared that the Freeburg/Perkins property was not subdivided by valid municipal action. Because of this, the proponent is proceeding to the Planning Commission with a request for an R.L.S. to subdivide the property into three single family parcels. In the attached letters dated August 23, 1985, and August 7, 1987, from Richard F. Attorney, to Clayton Freeburg, proponent, the court judgement was explainedwandCthe groper procedures for proceeding with the subdivision of the property was discussed. !9 a'1 Extihl3,r.n, ( c Freeburg/Perkins Addition 3 June 10, 1988 Site Plan/R.L.S. This property is currently zoned R1-22 which was zoned by Ordinance #11-6, in November of 1969. The minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning district include: 1. Minimum lot size - 22,000 square feet. _ 2. Lot width 90 feet. ' 3. ,Lot depth - 125 feet. 4. Front yard setback - 30 feet. 5. Side yard setbacks - 15 feet. • 6. Rear yard setback - 25 feet. 1 AU of the lots meet the minimum " requirements of the R1-22 zoning district with the exception of_frontage on a publicly dedicated street or street that has received legal twoexisting homes cwhile rTract acts ABa would nd C obef ttheheplocationroposdR of. a�newrhomehe locations of Access to this subdivision is provided by Willow Creek Road which is a 2,800-foot long cul-de-sac in addition to a 20-foot wide private road easement to provide filed access with THennepinracts A aCounty.nd C. IfBased the suponvtheosubmitten is droR.L.S., ract T i easement s shall only lot having frontage on Willow Creek Road. In the R1-22 zoning district, 90the feetnof frontage on a publicly dedicated street is required. A variance for street frontage will be required for all three lots. In addition, because the proposed subdivision is by registered land survey and does not indicate easements as on a plat, the proponent will be required to file separate drainage and utility easements as required by the Engineering Department. Lots sizes within the subdivision range from a minimum of 32,000 square feet for Tract C to a maximum of 56,000 square feet for Tract B. The average lot size is 41,333 square feet. Overall density of the proposed R.L.S. is approximately 1.05 units per acre. Adjacent lots, located to the north and south of this proposal average approximately 60,144 square feet or P.3 acres. The minimum lot size within the adjacent area is 38,115 square feet and the maximum lot size is 82,764 square feet. Resolution 868 (see Attachment A), adopted by the City Council on July 9, 1974, cites the following reasons for denying the request to subdivide the property into three building sites: 1. Ordinance No. 93 (Chapter 12) as amended, requires each property to abut a public road to better serve the occupants therein. 2. The topography of the land lends itself to two building sites, and is more in conformance with the neighboring plat, and the restrictions thereon. 3. Failure to subdivide said Tract into 3 parcels would not cause an exceptional undue hardship and deprive the applicant of substantial property right. Based upon these reasons, the City Council approved the division of the property • into two building sites both fronting on a public road. • 1qa$ Ex►3,A,T D, ( Freeburg/Perkins Addition 4 June 10, 1988 Shoreland Ordinance The Shoreland Ordinance, No. B2-18 and effective 9-17-82, is designed to "provide standards and criteria for the subdivision, use and development of the shorelands of protected waters in order to preserve and enhance the quality of service waters, conserve the economic and natural environmental values of shorelands and provide for a wise utilization of water and related land resources and thereby promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare." Bryant Lake is classified as a Recreational Development Water on the Eden Prairie Comprehensive Guide Plan. The requirements for single family homes on abutting lots, without public sewer include the following: 1. Minimum lot size - 5 acres. 2. Minimum width at building line - 300 feet. 3. Minimum width at Ordinary High Water Mark - 150 feet. 4. Minimum setback from Ordinary High Water Mark - 100 feet. 5. Minimum setback to septic tanks and soil absorption systems - 100 feet. The following chart indicates how Tracts A, B, and C. respond to the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance: Required Tract A Tract B Tract C 1. 5 ac. O.B3 ac.* 1.29 ac.* 0.74 ac.* 2. . 300 feet 268 feet* 246 feet* 140 feet* 3. 150 feet 350 feet 133 feet* 225 feet 4. 100 feet 84 feet* 160 feet * 40 feet 5. 100 feet No data No data • No data * - Items which will require a variance. The proponent will be required to apply for, and receive, 9 shoreland variances from the Board of Appeals to allow for the subdivision and subsequent construction of a single family home on Tract B. No data has been provided re setbacks of the septic tanks to the O.H.W. so it cannot bedeterminedgbyt Staff�asmto whether or not there is enough room on the project site to accomodate an additional septic system or whether the existing systems meet Code requirements. Grading/Utilities There are two existing homes located on Tracts A and C which would not require any additional grading or utility work. However, because of the slopes on Tract B, it appears that a significant amount of grading work would be required to allow for the development of the home and the proposed septic and well system. No information has been submitted by the proponent regarding the grading of the home site or utility placement. Staff has inspected the site with the proponent and observed a number of large oak trees on Tract B which would be subject to tree replacement if removed. The proponent has not provided information regarding any significant vegetation on this site. I�a� Exiki Da'I), . ( c Freeburg/Perkins Addition 5 June 10, 1988 t The following is a partial list of the information which has not been submitted by the proponent as requested in the May 18, 1988, (see Attachment B) letter: 1. General description of the request or proposal. 2. Variances requested. 3. ' Shoreland Ordinance/Floodplain restrictions (if applicable). • 4. Existing vegetation (identify significant trees to be removed). Wetlands, creeks, and ponds (type of wetland, determination of public or private waters, shoreland classifications, depict Ordinary High Water Mark and 100-year flood elevation). 6. Easement locations and type. 7. Locations of existing and proposed utilities. In regards to septic systems, the State of Minnesota requires that there be a 100- foot minimum setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark, a 20-foot minimum setback from the building and a 10-foot minimum setback from the property line. A well must be setback a minimum of three feet from a building, five feet from a property line, 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark, and 50 feet from the septic tank. In order to evaluate the proposal, the plans must show the existing and proposed utility locations. In addition, the proponent has indicated a 30-foot building pad with no proposed grading. A 50-foot building pad is the recommended standard for reviewing building pad grading. At a minimum, additional information which must be submitted in order to evaluate this development proposal includes an overall grading • plan, utility locations, and the locations and sizes of any significant vegetation. Conclusions ( Staff has evaluated the proposal as submitted and has concluded the following: 1. The proponent, in order to subdivide the property asproposed, accrding to current City Code requirements will be requesting a total ofand 12 variances from the Board of Appeals. This includes 9 shoreland variances and 3 variances which are required because of the lot frontage requirement on a substantiation dedicated forthe vari The anceswhichphepwould beonent hrequesting,provided any 2.• The lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning districts, however, the size of the lots, and the setbacks from the lake, vary greatly from what is existing in the neighborhood. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 41,333 square feet (0.95 acres) with a 95-foot setback from the lake as compared to an existing average lot size of 60,144 square feet (1.38 acres) and a setback of 182.5 feet. CityResolution 868 cited the incompatibility of the 3-lothe subdivisionuwith the existing neighborhood as one of their reasons for the denial of the 3-lot subdivision. 3. In order to review this project, Staff must have complete and accurate information to evaluate all aspects of the project. As stated in the letter of May 18, 1988, Staff requested additional information from the proponent. The proponent has not submitted the requested information. ° 4. Finally, an alternative exists for the development of the property which would reduce the number of variances required and make the lot sizes more consistent with the existing neighborhood, By of Tract B. the number of variances could be reduced nfrom 912he tol9kandrTracts A and C could be increased in size. An easement could be placed over a portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract B. /CMO Ezt1 ear 11 C c: Freeburg/Perkins Addition 6 June 10, 1988 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS • If the Planning Commission feels that an alternative may have merit, Staff would recommend that the plans be returned to the proponent for revisions based upon Staff recommendations and Commission concerns. If the Planning Commission feels that the number of variances is excessive, that adequate information has not been provided to support -the development proposal, and that the proposed R.L.S. is incompatable with the existing neighborhood, then the appropriate action would be for denial. • • • I9SI &Area'D, • STAFF REPORT Planning Commission • FROM: Donald R. Uram, Assistant Planner THRUGH: Chris Enger, Director of Planning — .- DATE: PROJECT: Freeburg/Perkins Addition LOCATION: 7010 Willow Creek Road APPLICANT. Clayton Freeburg . FEE OWNERS: Raymond Freeburg, Raynell Perkins, and Clayton Freeburg REQUEST: Registered Land Survey of approximately 2.9 acres into 3 tracts, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals. Background/History •� \ 1 I �— fiifP: : ii0n± P Und and history ,. ,;l. '''" • of the proposed projects,;;. �� `_� '; Site Plan/R.L.S. `� • Changes to the plan in response to 1.:• .. 1 ''':•-•• t: rr" additional utilit _ P. Y information F _ provided by the proponent, included • �' re"'.1 'f -4 PROPOSED SITE-- `' an increase in lot size for ` ,Ili.,+~` x- r,; ' ,rk from 00 to 00 Tract C 3'.: y �' due32'0 36,0 square feet ':,a: _ ,, to the relocation of the eastern '� •.'• aki r:i lot line. This change " d`' �� uj l; that was made so �' ' :'.► 1 t+ the existing septic system , t� �'j would be included on the parcel. No � ' 1' {"� •1'(4� ; other changes have been made to the ti r�.'y proposed subdivision. All of the oil JI �p •*e, • Nth. 1';/' - "lots meet the minimum requirements i F i'R % ':' ` t't•r; ,: l%4, of the RI-22 zoning district with �. / �' « tu. ,• r the `, , `•� ,ru ,.. 4' exception of frontage on a Publicly dedicated street. A 20a 1.:i .," `•/ • q1 `" „" I Its foot easement has been submitted ' _ OFC :'" � n �� " 1 which would provide access to Tracts A1�'tvftix`,y'j A and C. Tract B would C;;rt";;,p,-A , r��^ Willow Creek Road. access _ _ 'EG-SER� L a C1f`%. .: t'. "' • AREA LOCATION MAP AP • _ 193� Cxt}ltai? De . Freeburg/Perkins Addition 2 May 19, 1989 Res n 68 adopted by City forodenyingpthe request to subdividecil theon Jul y property,into43 ed the following reasons � building sites: 1• Ordinance #93, Chapter 12, as amended, requires each property to abut a __ _ public road to better serve the occupants therein. Since the June 10, 1988, Staff Report, two subdivisions have been approved with private roads with characteristics such as the Freeburg/Perkins Addition. The Red Rock Shores subdivision abutting Mitchell Lake has a private road providing access to 6 single family lots. The reasons behind the granting of the private road is that it provided a better site plan, saved additional trees and natural site features, and allowed for larger lots than what could be accomplished with a public road. The Creekview Addition also has a private road providing access to two single family lots. This road was approved because of its ability to save additional natural site features such as slopes and trees. A public road could be extended to service the 3 lots within the Freeburg/Perkins Addition; however, it would result in mass grading and tree loss and would not serve the public benefit. The two homes which are benefiting from the _ road easement are already existing, Tract B, the proposed location of the new home would have access to Willow Creek Road. 2. The topography of the land lends itself to two building sites and is more in conformace with the neighboring plat and the restrictions thereon. The proponent has submitted a prototype building pad designed to work with the contours of the existing property. currently existing will not result in any additiona The two homes _ _..._- alteration. The proposed buildinggrading or land design home with no attached garage thus requiring a onlytuck-under that portion of the building pad placed on the hillside. Alt gh the plans depict a 50-foot building pad which was recommendedhofor purpose of analysis in the previous Staff Report, the for pr be required to submit a more detailed grading plan showing wall V- grading which may be expected with the construction of a single - family home. This plan shall be submitted prior to City Council review. Any deviation from the proposed grading plan at time building permit issuance will require both Planning Commission and City Council review. of A tree inventory has been submitted by the proponent for Trat C. There are a total of 854 caliper inches of significant trees on-site with a calculated tree loss of 355 caliper inches, or 41.6%, Based upon this figure, a tree replacement plan depicting inches is required. The proponent shall submit a deta9ledaltree inventory for the entire property which is expected to reduce the percentage of tree replacement required. tree In response to the question: • "Is there a restriction applicable to the Freebur that the lot size be a least one acre in size rsuantito property .or furtherance of a general plan?" pursuant to covenant 1933 • • -Freeburg/Perkins Addition 3 May 19, 1989 -- ..The Court judgement.dated May 13, 1977 stated that: • "The Freeburg/Perkins property is not subject to any restriction requiring lot size to be not less than one acre." The City Councils decision reflected in Resolution #868 was made prior to and without the benefit of the court judgement of May 13, 61977. 3• Failure to subdivide said tract into 3 parcels exceptional undue hardship and deprive the applicant ofwsubstannot tial cause ro Perty an right. . . ' -- - P • .According to the history of the proposed to Raynell Perkins and Clayton Freeburgin 1973ect TractsWe13andive -C.If the subdivision had been approved at the time of the earlier request, it could have been accomplished without variances except for road frontage. Since that time, the City has adopted the Shoreland Ordinance, which creates 8 of the 11 variances being requested. The denial of the proposed subdivision deprives the applicant of the use of his 52,000 square foot lot, apparently owned since 1973, for a single family home. Shoreland Ordinance . The minimum requirements for single family homes on abutting lots, without sewer include the following: 1. Minimum lot size - 5 Acres. public 2. Minimum width at building line - 300feet. 3. Minimum width at O.H.W. - 150 feet. • 4. Minimum setback from O.H.W. - 100 feet. The following chart indicates how the revised Tracts A, B, and C respond to the minimum requirements of the Shoreland Ordinance. Re wired --2_ Tract A Tract B Tract C 1. 5 ac. 1.06 ac.* 1.19 ac.* 0.83 ac.* 2. 300 feet 268 feet* 270 feet* 195 feet* 3• 150 feet 350 feet 80 feet* 225 feet 4. 100 feet 110 feet 200 feet 75 feet* * - Items which will require a variance. As indicated, a total of 8 variances will be required from the Shoreland Ordinance. If the project had been approved when originally submitted, the Shoreland Ordinance would not have been in effect and the variances would not be required. • 67xlftB'T D . l93('{ • Freeburg/Perkins Addition 4 May 19, 1989 Conclusions In the report dated June 10, 1988, Staff concluded the following: 1. "The proponent, in order to subdivide the property according to current City Code requirements will be requesting pao total, ofa12 variances from the Board of Appeals. This includes 9 shoreland variances and 3 variances which are required because of the lot frontage requirement on a publicly dedicated street." The current plan indicates 8 shoreland variances. In order to meet the lot size requirement, a parcel would have to be 15 acres in size. The lot size of the parcel prior to subdividing is approximately 3 acres. None of the lots abutting Bryant Lake along the east side of Willow Creek Road meet the lot size requirement. Additional variances are caused by the width of the lots at the building line. Again, no adjacent lots meet the existing requirements for lot width. The proposed lot widths of this project are as large or larger than those existing along Willow Creek Road. The width at the Ordinary High Water Mark for Tract B is the only lot which does not meet the 150-foot width requirement. ,This variance be t frtage along Bryant ldLake. eHowever, lot yfrontage the �aiongiBryanton of loLakeonadds value to the property and does not create any significant deviation to the shoreland esthetics. Finally, Tracts A and C are the lots which do not meet the setback requirements from the Ordinary High Water Mark. The original house was not subject to these requirements and the home on Tract C was built and approved by the City in 1975 and met the requirements at that time. Mr. Freeburg's home on Tract B meets the requirement of the Shoreland Ordinance in regards to setback from the Ordinary High Water Mark with a setback of approximately 200 feet. 2. "The lots meet the minimum requirements of the R1-22 zoning districts; however, the size of the lots, and the setbacks from the lake, vary greatly from what is existing in the neighborhood. The average size of the proposed lots is approximately 41,333 square feet (0.95 acres) with a 95-foot setback from the lake as compared to an existing average lot size in the area of 60,144 square feet (1.38 acres) and a setback of 182.5 feet. The City Council in Resolution /868 cited the incompatibility of the 3-lot subdivision with the existing neighborhood as one of their reasons for the denial of the 3-lot subdivision." The average lot size of the proposed R.L.S. is 44,733 square feet, or 1.03 acres. Existing lots within the area average approximately 60,144 square feet, or 1.38 acres. The difference between the averages is approximately 15,411 square feet. In this particular case, 2 of the lots proposed exceed the size of the smallest lot abutting Bryant Lake along the east side. Thus, the lots proposed would not be the smallest in this particular area. In regards to building setbacks from Bryant Lake, 2 of the setbacks are based upon • homes which are currently existing and met the requirements of the zoning district when built. Based upon the proposed plan, the house setback for Tract B is a minimum of 200 feet which exceeds the average setback of homes in the area. As this information indicates, the lots which are being proposed are not significantly out of character with the existing neighborhood. ---_ IQ3S Ext}rgir�z Freeburg/Perkins Addition 5 May 19, 1989 3• "In order to review information to evaluate hialls paspect, oft the aff must have complete and accurate in of May 18, 1988, Staff requested additionalpinformation roect. Assfromd prthe proponent. o letter The proponent has not submitted the requested information." In the minutes dated June 13, 1988, Staff and Planning Commission stated that the minimum information which must be submitted for —review purposes included: 1) an overall grading plan depicting a 50- foot building pad, 2) a tree inventory, 3) utility locations. This information has been submitted for Staff review. plan has been submitted which indicates a 50-footAhousepad withrading tuck-under design. The proposed plan indicates minimal grading designed primarily to show drainage around the house. Staff would recommend that the grading plan be further detailed. The -not Currently indicate an - attached garage. According to • the proponent, plan does roposed o be utilized. Once garage at the base of the hill is additional review ttocdeterminefic home is conformancedwithnthe Staff ecomplan.If any deviation exists between the proposedapprovedln approved gradinggradingplan. to the PlanningCommisscioning andmore Cityimpact,Councilihe for review. and the proponent must return A tree inventory has been submitted which indicates a total of 854 caliper inches of significant trees on-site. A tree loss of 355 caliper inches has been calculated. Staff recommends that the proponent provide a detailed tree inventory for the entire site to reduce the amount of tree replacement required. A tree replacement plan must be submitted prior to Council review. The utility locations shown on the plan indicate that the minimum State requirements are being met for Tract B. In a memo, January 14, 1974, from Marty Jessen, former Director Community Servicesdated Departmentmmy of , stated that information of Parks ande Natural Resources indicatedthatov� he by ed Shoreland Management Regulations may require an the of 20,000 to 40,000 square feet without sewer, buildingproposed 75 to 100 feet, approximate lot size 5e assumed regulations sain sewer setback of 50 fee , setbackss ofn minimum requirements of the ishoreland managementlregulatioBsSed upon would meet the A permit for the septic system for Tract C was inspected and approved September 9, 1975. There is no permit information for the septic system on Tract A. Because the septic systems Tract A and C are both setback a existing Ordinary Higha Water Mark,by approximately 70 feety for to the current minimum State estandawoulrdsaif the ve to be relocatedo from the Y were to fail. according 4• "Finally, an alternative exists for the would reduce the number of variances requiredeand makeak of the more consistent with the existing the lotroperty which of Tract B, the number of vriancesocould•beBreducedfrom 12 to 9s and sTracts A and C could be increased in size. eliminating the lake frontage portion of Tract C for lake access fora easement could be Tract B." placed over a • • Freeburg/Perkins Addition 6 May 19, 1989 By eliminating the lake frontage for Tract B, 3 of the proposed 8 '• variances could be eliminated. As indicated in the previous Staff Report, an easement could be placed over a portion of Tract C for lake access for Tract 8. The Planning Commission and proponent may wish to consider this alternative. Summary • • Based upon the current analysis, it appears that the proposed subdivision would not be significantly out of character with what is existing in the adjacent neighborhood. Staff has indicated that if the proper procedures had been followed in the early 1970's,.this project could have been approved without variances except for lot frontage. •Currently, the majority of the variances being requested are Shoreland Ordinance which would be required of any lot located along Willow Creek Drive. Information which has been :submitted including the grading plan and tree inventory has indicated that the proposal would not seriously alter the natural characteristics of the site or shoreland area other than that expected with the construction of a single family home.• •STAFF RECOMMENOATIONS • • If the Planning Commission feels that the proposed R.L.S. has. merit, appropriate action would be to recommend approval of the proposed R.L.S. of approximately 2.9 acres into 3 tracts, with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals, subject to plans dated April 25, 1989, and May 8, 1989, the Staff Report dated May 19, 1989, and subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to Council review, proponent shall: A. Submit a revised grading plan detailing all grading expected. B. Submit an overall tree inventory for the entire project site. Tree replacement will be based upon the revised tree inventory. 2. Prior to Building permit issuance, proponent shall: A. Submit detailed building plans for review. B. Notify the City at least 48 hours in advance of grading. C. Pay the appropriate Cash Park Fee. 3. Apply for, and receive, variances from the Board of Appeals for shoreland variances and lot frontages on a publicly dedicated street. If the Planning Commission feels that the number of variances are excessive, and that the proposed development is incompatible with the existing neighborhood then the appropriate action would be for denial. • ---- iq3,? tXNisIT b 5 Robert Gibson of 15737 Cedar Ridge came forward. He requested a vote on the request this evening as he felt the needs could be filled within the code requirements. Ray Rannow came forward and said that he and Randy Rannow have discussed the road for 6 years now. He clears the driveway in the winter and said that it is too steep and dangerous. It should go out to County Rd 4 where there is level land. The paving will be done, but it need to be decided where the driveway should go. When they had stated to dig after the permit was granted, there had been intimidation by the neighbors. Ed Martin asked why more fill could not be added to reduce the slope. Ray Rannow said that this was not practical. Ed Van Rosen of 15901 Cedar Rd came forward and said that 15906 does not have a complete hard surface driveway. What would the Board do on that matter? Problems could arise with joint driveway. There were 8 cars there tonight and three cars in the front. The garage was not used. Rannow came forward and said he had heard a lot of things, and felt it was important to stick to the matters at hand. Freemyer asked if this was rental property. Rannow answered that one unit was rented to 5 persons. Richard O'Brien said he opposed a continuance. Tonight there is consideration of three variances--if another is requested, let Rannow make another request at another time. To continue the request is to start over. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board deny variance request 89-30 because: Regarding item 1--no hardship was demonstrated Regarding item 2-Problems could arise from potential sale of the property and no hardship was demonstrated. Regarding item 3-There are alternatives. Bozonie seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. UNil ep�veo S Anderson noted that he had suggested a continuance because he 1 had hoped to work with Rannow and give him an opportunity to BBOAR)) (11WUTES improve the situation. 7 3 6 9 Johnson noted that the applicant has until July 30, 1989 to install the driveway. F e uest #89-31 submitted kx' a ton Freebur. or ro ert located at 0 Willow Creek Road, Eden 'rai — Y ta as: See reverse side. The request is fora varianceef Cdtsc=ib� Cea ter ection 1.0- Subdivision - _y Code. ract A at 1.OTacres• hermit—ro osed Tract 8 atol ermit ro osed proposed Tract C at-`83 acres acres; nimit lot size -To ermi[ro ose Ccte wires a 5 acre minimum building line of 8'; grail r£ d rT act 8 Withta widthaf the 19 1 6 (J/04-e c O &VP rn/NaTess building line of 270': permit Tract C with a width at the buildin 7 3-$1 line of I35T.—City, Code require3 a misimum wi th at the bui ing line of 3001-111 To permit proposed Tract 8 with as minimum width at the -Femly High Water Mark at 80' —City Code re uires MT: �. T ) 7o Rtolt proposed Lot C with a building setback 7 ' from the Ordinate High Water Mark.City Code requires 100'. existing se tic systems on proposed tracts A and C within To 0' o the Ordinate High Water Mark. Code.requires a TO'Lba �bf To ERnmit an existing tennis court on proposed tract 8 within 150 of the Ordinary Water Mark. City Code requires 150'. 1 To ermit an existing accessor structure on Emma Tract C within of the Ordinary Water Mar . Ci— ty Code requires ISb:permit proposed Tract 8 with lot frontage on a ublic street o �10' City Code requires 90'. IL City Code, Chapte T c etion-T2� Subdivision IL to ermit ro osed tract A and C without ronta�on a ublic street. City Code re uires properites to have frontaae on a pub is street. Clayton Freeburg appeared to present the variance. He explained that this property is unique--it is on a cul de sac on a high bluff. It has 2 existing homes on the parcel A fi C and he would like to build a home on lot C. The home would be on a hill quite a distance from the lake. As far as he can see, many subdivisions do not adhere to codes. The cul de sac is old and established. They tried to divide the parcel according to the lay of the land. Johnson said she has applications for platting the property that go back to the 1970's. There is more detailed information now. Bozonie asked if the property was now one lot with two homes. Freeburg said yes, according to the courts. Johnson noted that the Council did have action to approve a two lot sub- division. Now the three lot request had been approved by the Planning Commission and the Council. Attorney Rosow stated that it is now three lots with 2 houses after the Council action taken in June. Freemyer asked if Council reviewed these variance requests. The one concerning the septic tank is the most troublesome. Freeburg said the location of the septic tank was the main issue. It should drain to the peat bog and not the lake. Johnson displayed a map showing the location the the drain field and septic system. Harvey had concerns on the septic system--If it should fail, where would it be moved? Is there room on tracts A fi C? Johnson felt there was room there, or possibly an above ground facility could be used,or holding tanks. S Anderson asked how the City Council and Planning Cormission responded to the alternatives. Johnson said that they did not feel it would make a difference. 1939 7 mINuTTs 7-13-a? The Council had looked at the neighborhood and considered the reasonable use of the land. Council felt it was similar to the surrounding use. Freemyer felt possibly many properties in Eden Prairie were similar. Other people will want to do the same. Unique circumstances need to be identified. Rosow said he felt this was unique and the survey had been approved and recorded. Then, the court found it was illegally done. The time involved prevented the owner from dang a nything further with the property. The City did not properly approve or manage the process. The owner made a number of applications to obtain the application. The court found the original sub-division flaw. It found that the property had never been properly platted. Harvey asked when sewer would be available from the City. Johnson said she did not know, it could be part of the long term proposal in the future. Freeburg said it would be very difficult to change the roads without changing lots and destroying trees. It is a high hill with many oaks. Johnson said some other similar interior lots could be divided, but not lakeshore with similar size lots. Rosow said that the two lot subdivision was filed.'In 1972, the city approved the division of 3 lots, A,B, & C, but there was no hearing. Freeburg noted that the lines have never been changed at all. Harvey suggested that a condition could be added that all three lots hook into City sewer when it becomes available. Johnson said that possibly "when needed" could be added to such a condition. Harvey asked how many other lake lots violate setbacks regarding high water marks. Bozonie responded there were sixteen, counting Freeburgs three. Freeburg asked if the existing dwelling on lot A is a well kept home. Freeburg answered that it was, his parents have lived there for 19 years. Stewart Nolan came forward. He lives at 7020 Willow Creek Rd and feels he is more affected than anyone else. He is against it for the following reasons: I. Septic tank: No place to relocate the tank for the older home. Above ground is expensive. If Freeburg builds the proposed home, the tank will drain on 'Nolans property. 2. Setting a precedent: There are a lot of lots that could be subdivided, including his own. The average lot is 1.5 acres. This subdivision would have smaller lots. He could do the same thing, but does not want to increase the density. 19«J 3 u N*p pesve, &i9tp miivuTrs 7-I3- '7 3. Council did not consider the 11 variances. 4. Failure to see the hardship here--there are two homes and two lots. Harvey asked if the existing homes are on the illegally subdivided land. Rosow answered that they were. Johnson said that there are many setbacks that drain fields must meet. If there were any problems, any neighbor should contact the City and tests will be made. Regarding the Staff reviewing the lot sizes in the area--they did not go on lot size alone, but the depth and also the location of the home on the lot. Mrs Freeburg came forward and stated that she would like it if the Board would come and see the lot. They have gone through a lot to get this lot cleared. Astelle Knutdson, a resident of Willow Creek for 28 years came forward and said she was concerned. Many would like it if she would sub-divide her land too, but there are ordinances that must be adhered to. If so many variances were required on a property, something must be wrong with the property. Jim Perkins came forward and said that nineteen years ago this family brought the division of the property to the City. The City said it could be split into two lots rather than three. The Court said the City did not act properly. The property is porous and sandy--it drains well. This process would not be necessary if it had been handled properly years ago. He stated he could understand the Board's concern with so many variances. Harvey asked if the shoreland ordinance of 1982 was applied to existing lots, how many would comply or fail? Johnson said they have looked at it concerning lot size and width. Harvey felt that if the neighbors had made improvements to their lots (had to wait until 1989), many variances would have been required also. Freemyer asked if it could be grandfathered. Rosow said variances would be needed--grandfatheriing could not be relied upon. Officially there were now three tracts. Akemann felt there were definite hardships here as some varainces have no alternatives. It is difficult to ascertain which are appropriate. Johnson said that in the Staff report of June 10, the variances are itemized. There still would have been 9 variances even if the City did not approve the three lots. Now there is a three lot subdivision. Rosow said if the variances are not approved, the lot cannot be used. Freemyer asked why some of the variances should be listed if the Council approved the 3 tract registered land survey with no contingencies. IOUI 9 uN4pp/aaJE3j Bo4RP MM' res 7-/3-457 Harvey asked if the Council approval of the 3 tract registered land survey was based on Staff findings. Nolan said 8 of the 11 variances concern 1932 shoreland ordinance. IIe believes the Freeburgs had the ability to come back before the Council before 1982. • Perkins said at that time, a number of neighbors were upset and they felt it was not the time to do it. Freeburg said that City records should show that an attempt was made in 1980. MOTION: Freemyer moved that the Board deny variance request 89-31 as presented. No hardship was demonstrated and precedents may be set if it were to be granted. Applicant may take the appeal to the City Council. Akemann seconded the motion and it passed 54-1 with Harvey opposed. Recess called at 10 P.M. Meeting reconveyned at 10:13 P.M. G. Request #89-32, submitted ty U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service for property located at 950I Riverview Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described as: See reverse side. The request is for a variance from City Code Chapter 11, Section 11.03, Subdivision 2, �d—to permit a Rural of size of 473N acres. City Code requires T6 acres. The variance is related to acquistion of property associated with the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Ross Grimwood of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Dept appeared to present the variance. He had been working with the owner. The land is in a flood plain area. It will be managed for wildlife and kept in a natural state. Harvey asked if the variance was for the remaining land. Grimwood answered that it was. Johnson said that the City has endorsed these plans in Eden Prairie--this is the fourth such variance. The remaining tract of land will be consistent with surrounding properties. Grimwood said that they were considering one other such area to the west, but at the present time have limited funds. MOTION: Bozonie moved that the Board approve variance request 89-32 as submitted with findings in support of approval. Freemyer seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. H. Request #89-33, submitted ty Marvin and Magdalene Miller for property located at 7293 Gerald Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota, legally described as:Lot 20 Block'7opview Acres 3rd Addition. The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter —1T� e�ction I1.03, 3Ubdivision E_to permit a fence height of 12'. City Code maximum fence height is 6'. qua Variance # CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE Receipt N VARIANCENC REQUEST APPLICATION 11ATE: J cc it_2. 1 7 . e/ ...PLICANT'S NAME: _ / h 7 G,, T ADDRESS: s--G O S el-- G.----e-•e,e-J _ So PHONES: Work REQUEST FOR Home 2 ZIP VARIANCE AT: C-7 0 ,(4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: '1' Cl-�c �{ FEE: rA) E75.00 - Residential B) $75 00 - ser - (includes building additions, decks, and Code interpretations) property and variances(associated variances newassociated development/construction)industrial, commercial REASON FOR VARIANCE: -� / ,^fie� e O t-r/t/ A c G-o( / e98-.2- Submission Reguirem e� —`y �r� C�5• 1) Residial - 8 1/2" x 11" survey showing lot lines and setbacks of existing and pro sed structures and location of buildings on adjoining ions a itectural floor plans, and pertinent topographicalerties featureslssuchhow trees,n eo a slopes, ponds, roads, and existing and proposed elevations, which ashave Sbearine5'aberms, variance request. g on the 2) Other - 8 1/2" x 11" survey showing lot lines and setbacks of existing structures. Where surveys are larger than 8 1/2" x 11", 7 copies of site plan folded x 11" will be required. Also include landscape plan, and proposed trees, fences, berms, steepAlso cs P pertinent topographical featuresosuch/as slopes, roads, and exiting and proposed have bearingn on the request. _. P elevations, which 3) Letter addressed to Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and reason(s) why conformance to the literalprovisions of the City's code would hardship. i,, explaining nature of variance request y cause hardship. ��..� - APPlican "s ignatdre Fee Owner's ignature Land Own • Notes to Applicant• • 1. The ;. Board meets on the 2nd Thursday of the month, 7:30 p.m., City Hall Council Cha 7600 Executive Drive, Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 2• Applications must be filled, no later than 2nd Thursdaytubers, meeting date. of the month previous to the 3• Notices are published in the Eden Prairie News feet. Applicants are encouraged to personallyand mailed to propertyp ownersy owners,within for to the hearing, in order to explain the varianceoandct adjacent property concerns at the hearing. to be prepared y prior P to address their *NOTE: SUBMIT 9 COPIES FOLDED TO 81/2" x 11" OF//�� OVER 8 "ANY SITE PLANS X 11" _• _•-.N.,i....+.ate•-• .r.+........_........ VARIANCE #89-31 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS FINAL ORDER RE: Petition of Clayton Freeburg ADDRESS: 7010 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Exhibit A VARIANCE REQUEST: See Attached Exhibit B The Board of Appeals and Adjustments for the City of Eden Prairie at a regular meeting thereof duly considered the above petition and after hearing and examining all of the evidence presented and the file therein does hereby find and order as follows: 1. All procedural requirements necessary for the review of said variance have been met. (YES X NO__) 2. There are circumstances unique to the property under consideration, and granting such variances does not violate the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning and Platting Code. 3. Variance Request #89-31 is herein Granted , Denied X 4. Conditions to the granting NA , denial NA follows: of said variance are as 5. This variance shall be revoked within 15 days after notice of failure to meet the required conditions has been given. 6. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to the applicant by the City Clerk. 7. This order shall be effective July 1` 3, 1g89; however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alternatives permitted shall occur within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. 8. All Board of Adjustments and Appeals actions are subject to City Council review. BOARD OF QAPPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTSQ� BY: ,1�r(1PE_ CS /�1 D jadv DATED: July 13 1989 1q011 • C CY C J Y Y � ^r C P •. 7 C 2••O C n G a N. Y C .• w L h C E G 3NW u m x - • E u C C• � •u O : x %•- L x u i 4 "vG C C i L 7- Y X `•C E x �^ I Y Y C s - c = s c e.e : ^ C. I-.• Y 3 C S. C -i Cv. •X I ^ s i L :x • C C L C :'G B j 7 __ +-r L..1. C •: Exhibit A c The request is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 11.50, Subdivision 6. in To permit proposed racf A at r.716—acres; permit proposed osed Tract at 1.19 acres permit proposed Tract C at TM—acres. City Code requires a 5acre minimum lot size. To permit proposed Tract A w titi h a width at the building line of 268'• permit proposed 'Fact B with a width at tnieovilding line of 270'; permit-Tract C a width at the building line of 795' City Code required a minimum width at the building line of 3007 Li To permit proposed Tract 5—with as minimum wi to at the Ord-friary High Water NTarr at 80' City Code requires 150'. in—To permit proposed Lot C with a building settack 73T from the rn nary High Water Marc City Code requires 1U0'al To permit existing septic systems on proposed tracts A end C within300' of the rdinary High Water Mark. Code re uires a300' setback. j T permit an existing tennis court on proposed trac—t $ within 156' of the Ordinary Water Mark. Cif Code re uires 1E6':I7 Top �'— q ermSt an existing accessory structure on proposed Tract C within 150' of the Ordinary Water Marcr. City Code requires 150'. L8j. To permit •ro•osed Tractb with iot frontage on a public street of 70' City Code requires 90'. Q City Code, Chapter 12s Section 12.30, Subdivision ,to permit proposed tract l and C without frontage on a public street. City Code requires properites to have frontage on—a public street. EXHIBIT B MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council FRDM: Jean Johnson, Zoning Administrator Staff Representative to Board of Adjustments & Appeals DATE: July 17, 19B9 RE: FREEBURG APPEAL OF BOARD'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE #89-31, RLS The variances requested are: Variance request #89-31, submitted pi Clayton Freeburg for property located at 7010 Willow Creek Road, Eden Prairie, Minnesota legally described as: See reverse side. 1 is for a variance from City Code, Chapter 11, Section 118b, Subdivision We—request1 To permit proposedTract A at_06 acres; permit proposed Tract B at 1.19 acres; permit proposed Tract C at—OT.83 acres. City Code requires a 5 acre minimum lot size. To permit proposed Tract A with a width at the building line of 266'. permit proposed Tract B with a width at the build nid q line of 'L30'; permit Tract C with a width at the buildin line ofT95'. Ci y Code required a minimum width at the buildingTWIT- of 3U6. I) To permit proposed TracLTwith as minimum width at the ordinary High Water Mrk—at 80'. City Code requires630'. 4) To permit proposed Lot C with a bull ia'ng setback 75' from the Ordinary High Water Mark. City Code requires7b0'. To permit existing septic systems on proposed tractsTl and C within 1D0' of the Ordinary High Water Mark. Code requires a 100' setbaEC—(6)-76 permit an existing tennis court on pro osea tract B within 150' of the Ordinary Water Mark. Cit s t5 y Code re uire0' (7J To permit an W existing accessory structure on ropose3-fact C witFiin of e Ordinary Water Mark—. City Code requires TSGr.($1—To permit •ro.osedTctd a with lot frontage on a pu�c street of 70 City Coe requires 90' Q City Code, C apter 1� Section 12.30, Subdivision l to permit proposed tractTl an. C without frontage on a public street. City Code requires properites to have frontage on a public street. At the Board's July 13, 1989 meeting, City Staff outlined to the Board that past errors in reviewing and approving division requests, and complicated court rulings, prevented timely City action on the plat. Staff does not believe other properties would have the same unique history and therefore the same hardship for similar variance requests. Board members had the following concerns: The number of variances being requested. Complicated history on the property. Granting this number of Shoreland variances may set a precedent for the Board. The Board voted 4:1 (Harvey) to deny Variance #89-31 because a hardship was not clearly identified, a precedent could be set, and due to the property's history, the Council should rule on the variances being requested. Board Members Present: Akemann, Bozonie, Harvey, Freemyer and Anderson Staff Present: Ric Rosow, Jean Johnson C 7TLANNINC COMMIE:':t,' APPROVED MINUTE MONDAY, MAY 22, 1119 :: - . 7:30 N C: '.i,s, ':U.^JCL ''f".:1Li.R" 7600 Executive Drive COMMISSION MEMBERS. PRESENT: Chairperson Byo, Christine Dodge, Richard :Anderson., Robert Hallett, Dougl.l.• _ ,nds_,..,, COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug Fell and ,.,,.,rles Rochling STAFF' MEMBERS: Michael Franzen, Senior .tanner; Don Ursa, Assist:Int PI.:nner; Sean Johnson, Zoning Administrator; Del; Edlund, Recording _ .._etary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE FOAL CALL: I. APPROVAL AC:ENDA C 1 Andereon moved, GeConded ",y Do!]•Je to approve_ the Agenda so published. Motion carried II. MEMBERS REPORTS II: . MINUTES MOTION: Dodge moved, seconded by SanLlot.od to approve the Minutes of the May 8, 1939 Planning Commission meetin; as publihej. Motion carried 5-0-0. IV. DEVELOPMEPT PROPOSALS A. COUNTRY GLEN, by Coffman Development. Request for Zoning • District Change from Rural to R1-13.5 on 9.3 acres, and Preliminary Plat of 9.3 acres into 20 single family lot , 1 outlot, and road right-of-way. Location: South of Town.line Road, west of Claycr.o:_s Way. A continued public hearing. Uratn reported that at the May 3, 1939 Pl:nning Commi .:i:,n meeting, direction had been given to the proponent to revise the read alignment based on negotiations with Pat CLueck, which had been completed. Pat Lueck, 6381 Duck Lake Road, stated that he had met with the proponent and had worked out an equitable Plannie3 Cue.:Iiaaion Hiaetes 1 11y 22, '''1 9 that1 ,,., ... .._ he conr:.tr� :�:, t.. Cc):ia^i::sle:ever S.:n:'.atad that if the brand :lame, wore eliminated from the co,I:er sign band it would .appear more .attractive. Smith replied that the copper sign band aignago had been approved and had already been ordered. Smith added that he .already had approval to install a free-steodiny pylon sign for "Tires Plus"; however, he believed it would be more attractive to have tar_+ sign on the curved all. Smith said that he had worked closely with, Staff to develop an acceptable signaye package, which had been difficult clue to the national franehi.'e :f the tenants. Hallett stated that he would prefer the sign on the bu!lding rather than another i,yten. MO;•f Tn_) _1 Anderson moved, seconded by Dell a t.;: tho at iC hearing. Nation carried 5-0-0. MOTION__.: Anderson moved, :seconded by Doodle to rccct;me ,l the City Council approval of the request of M. Au_:tin Smith: for Planned !;:tit Development District Review Amendment to Camend the Development Framework fur Lariat Center/Eden Prairie Auto Mall regarding sig:,age for Tire;; riva use according to recommendation 112 of the Ste ff Redo.'' dated tare May 18 1989, which l , should roue..: h,soon;., ! e. to allow a 21" "Tires Plus" sign cr the curved 'iris•}. ...ell excluding the use of a single t:nun`. free--ctandieg sign advertising Tires Plus. Motion carried .-0-0. C. FRrEHURC/PUF_F_NS ADDITION, by Clayton Freeburg. Request for a Registered Land Survey of 2.34 acres into 3 lets with variances to be reviewed by the Board of Appeals within the R1-22 Zoning District. Location: 7010 Willow Creek Road. A public hearing. Uram reported that Clayton Freeburg was ill and per a request from Mrs. Freeburg, he would make the presentation for the proponent if the Commission approved. The Commission was concerned that residents had been in attendance in the past .and were not here tonight. ilr,om replied that the proper notices had been mailed, It was publi:,had in the paper, and added that Staff had received Inquiries regarding the proposal Earn Stu Nolunrl related to the house location and Don Sorenson related to the subdivision in general; however, neither were present at this time. The Commission concurred that the proposal could he heard. C ,omi .r, Minot--. 22, 1939 Mrc. Freeburg stated that th'_ ' . .:. a lot i1... . the family had wanted to develop for IS years. t't:,m reported that the proponent Lad is rovic i ^tuff with lIe additional information requeJt,sd -.jurdl:oi grading, tree inventory, and the llocation of the present utilities. Uram noted that one of the earlier otiecticac war that each of the lots must aI:.ut a public load; however, since the original request twe ether subdivisions had teen approved in Eden Prairie; Boulder Pointe and 7ell Oaks, which had a private road which sere::) more than one lot. He added that a public road would dretroy the site due to the topography of the lard and the SO.-foot right-of-way required. A private road easement would be filed with the property to service the two e:xintin'j iI;uec ais? the • Freeburg home would have .;cc:ss to willow Creel: Road. Uram ridded that due Lo the sir , _ ci the 1 .1t:e the rage would not he attached to he home and would 1 '- ;ted adjacent to Willow Cr ee'.. load. Uram stated that !,;.,c.,. ,:] o";e,-r,ior, to the or. • rogue:-.t was relat:.d t, th._ - - pe Ih� ,' ... t:t:;:.;...��..;7 : . . ,� _..;r:,i and the recommendation that .a^two lot subdivision would be mere in conformance with the existing hon,ec-.. 1 court cnoo in 1977 Cruled that the lois w: re; not subject to the one-acre minimum lull sisc private covenant of th properties. Uram anted that the Council did not h.,v: the Benefit of the court. case information. Ur.:un stated that two of the homes were existing structures. The Freeburg home being a tuck-in unit would not significantly alter the site b.-,;led on the grading plan submitted. The property had been d. edcd to the proponent in 1973 and he had been unable to use the land. If the proposal had been approved originally, the proponent would have had the benefit of utilizing this lakeshore property for 15 years. The new plan would require 8 shoreland variances due to lot sires and sanitary sewer regulations. Uram stated that in order to meet the Shoreland Ordinance the property would need to contain 15 acres due to the 5 acre minimum lot size requirement; however, he noted that • none of the lots along Bryant Lake would meet the Shoreland Ordinance today. He added that the proposal beinj presented was not out of character with the existing neighborhood, with the lots being approximately the same sine and width. The proposed shoreland setback of 200 feet would exceed the existing average shoreland set;rack Hof 132 feet. Uram reported that the proposed Freeburg home would meet the state requirements for the septic system; however, the 'S existing homes did not. Uram stated that when the existing septic systems failed the new systems would need a', Planning Cunm:i..cian Mini:L _ r, May 22, 1339 1 `.i !e rele:, t, d to meet state .t,j'.iire::.ent:s. Staff .commended the tree inventory include the entire three ,ct.e its . Uram said the prci.snent wa:r.: propoain3 30 feet ,' lakeshore frontage on 3ryaut ..61'..00. ;n alternative c:<i::ted tc eliminate the lal:eshcre frontage through an ._.•meat for lake access. Uram stated that the lakeshore frontage would add value to the Freeburg property, would not take away from the view of the lake, and would not be inconsistent with the existing properties. Anderson asked how many of the variances applied to the existing homes. Uram replied 3 of the variances were for the existing homes. Sandstad asked how the City world know if the septic systems had failed. Uram reel'_-d it would be difficult unicss they applied for a permit fur a new system or if a neighbor complained. Sandstad asked if It would be expensive to relocate the c.y„tes . Uram replied yes. Hallett asked when City aster and serer would he. available In this area. Uram replied the neighborhood would reed to petition for water and sewer.. rye asked if there was currently any monitoring of.. than ( lake byth- Parks and Recreation Department. Uram replied he wa: not aware of any monitoring. Hallett sug-j ,:h d reucmmending monitoring to the ?arks and Recreation Department. Dodge asked what the requirement as for private .. . Ul am replied 100 feet from the high water mark. Dodge`, then asked about the minimum lot size outside the i IUCA Line of 10 acres to allow for the private septic systems. Uram replied that private septic sYtems could be used on R1-22 lots within the City and added that these proposed • lots exceeded the average R1-22 lot sizo. Sandstad asked Mrs. Freeburg is they had given consideration to the easement alternative. Freeburg; replied that they would like to keep the lakeshore frontage and believed that the property value would he lessened without the lakeshore frontage property. 1nT1oN 1: Sandstad moved, seconded by Dodge to close the publl,s hearing. Motion carried 5-0-0. • 11QIL2i 2: Sandstad moved, seconded by Dodge to recommend to the City ;4 Council approval of the request of Clayton Freeburg for approval of Registered Land Survey of the Freeburg/Perkins - ., Addition on 2.34 .., re% for thr.:e _ ;t:., !.iced on plans doted May 8, 1939, o•ub eci d ie.. cf the Staff Report dated May .,^,^ the °]iti;n to the D ice, '.°• with t .�e.r Staff Report that the road ea.;ement. ..gf -ment meet be filed with the RL3 Motion c:r;i :d -:1-f• D. 1.7,747SJILLADT.0, by Jim:_;; J. Ee:gin. Rey'. - y for site Plan Review within the I-2 Zoning Dietrlot on2 acre::: for construction of a 7,500 s.iLt.ore foot addition to an existing building. Location: Northwest corner of Martin Drive and Corporate Way. A public iec_e, i•,<•. Franzen recommended a continuance of t`:i �o onente it_.,. to the proponents absence. MQT ON: Anderson moved, seconded by 7•'z:';'s :id to tort I :'ac• ti:Is Item to the .7nne 1 1933 Planningti :d -0-0./ :r,:n'.. . ..:n ;:Ir Motion carried ., E. _2 '- 2Np by Cent:`, Real E:.t(+r Ccrpurntiun. Request fur a P]eu:od J.ai uvt 1;;p:;eat Amendment Review and Pl.:nned Unit Development District Review on approximately 1C1 acres with waivers, Zoning on.i: District Change from R1-13.5 to R1 -3.5 on G 1{ Preliminary Plat of 8.11 acres intolams. ^' s iay',e. .:,,.. lots Location: North and we_t of Cn:3 i . Wellington Drive. t ..:;i.. Ro.ie., no:... . .:t o E g. :evin Clark, t representing „en'.v;: iiu:nc;;•, atatad that -:['p:o;imately 130 notices had been sent to the se._oninning property owners advising them of a neighborhood meeting and added that the response from the neighbors had been positive. Clark stated that the proposed plans had • changed over the years from 9S condominium units to SS townhouse units and currently revised for a 23 single- family unit development. The average lot size would be 13,500 square feet. The cul-de-sac and corner lot would be modified based on the Staff recommendations. A grading problem raised by a neighbor had been addres::ed to the neighbors satisfaction. The model homer for this project would be located in the Fairfield ".:Lelivic;ion, with approximately 8 to 12 designs to chose from. S•Jndstad ,inked if the homes would :lave wood Ading. Clark replied that the homes were specified ,.t, aluminum of:ling with an option offered for redwood siding. Anderson asked the price range of the homes. Clark C replied apf,roximatcly $100,000 to $140,000, with some of the homes being first-time homes and anme being for those wishing to up-grade. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: City Manager Carl J. Jullie FROM: Assistant to the City Manager Craig W. Dawson SUBJECT: Parade Permit Application by Project Concern - Walk of Mankind DATE: July 26, 1989 Project Concern International has applied for a parade permit in order to conduct its Twin Cities Walk for Mankind fundraiser on Saturday, September 30, 1989. Project organizers have mapped a 25-kilometer course wholly within Eden Prairie; the event would last eight to ten hours. Contributions are made by persons who sponsor persons participating in the walk. Project Concern distributes 20 percent of the proceeds to member organizations within the metropolitan area, and the remaining funds are used world-wide for basic health care services. The Walk for Mankind has taken place in Eden Prairie during the past few years. Experience has shown that it is a significant project for the City to assist in logistics, staffing, and traffic control. Project Concern had planned this walk earlier this year; however, organizers cancelled the event just shortly before it was to take place. Police staff had spent many hours in planning for the City's responsibilities with this event. At this point, there are questions whether the police staff would have the resources to handle the request. To plan for the event and to have officers on duty for the walk would cost several thousand dollars; the department is on a pace which will easily overspend the amount budgeted for overtime in 1989. On these types of occasions, police reserve volunteers are often relied upon to augment the police officers on extra duty. Use of the reserves has been programmed for the rest of the year, however. Because the walk would be a non-emergency event, the reserves would not be required to be present. A policy question which the Council should address is the extent to which the City should be involved in accommodating events like this which are sponsored by private organizations. While the City is involved with public activities such as Schooner Days and July 4, these are community celebrations where there are benefits largely to Eden Prairie residents. Events like the Walk for Mankind, while being worthwhile programs, do not result in such direct benefits to the community. With the Walk for Mankind in particular, very few of its metropolitan member organizations are based in Eden Prairie. Walk for Mankind organizers have promised more support and organization for their event this year. They have indicated that they will recruit more volunteers than are necessary so that last-minute cancellations and no- shows will not leave them understaffed. Radio communications would be provided. More cleanup crews and "weary walker wagons" would also be available. Organizers believe these improvements would result in a more smoothly-run event than in previous years. All City trails would be available and uninterrupted by construction along the proposed parade route. /9S; Project Concern is seeking action on its parade permit application quickly in order to begin active planning for its 1989 Walk for Mankind. Recommendation: Based upon the limited staff and budget resources available at the time proposed for the Walk for Mankind, it is recommended that the Council not approve the parade permit. If Council decides to approve the permit, staff will work closely with the organizers to ensure a well-run event with the minimum use necessary of City resources. CWD:jdp /954 CITY OF EDEN PRAIRIE PARADE PERMIT APPLICATION City Code 6.20 requires that any organization or sponsor of any event, which is defined as a parade, apply for a permit to the City Manager at least 30 days prior to the event. NOTE: If the route requires the use of any County or State streets, the applicant must apply to the appropriate agency and show authorization prior to the issuance of any City permit. Date of Application: July 11,1989 Organization:_ ly_y,Y blankinr3/Prnjprt l'nnrprn Intl. Type of Event: Walk Contact Person: Taigh MrKay Home Phone: 927-4080 Work Phone:922,40flQ_ Address: 55.3.3 rnmharlpnd Rd. Mpls.MN 55410 _ Route: E] sp refer_tn enclosed uap Date of Event: Septegter 39,1989 ' Time of Event: Start 8:30 AM.M (req. 97-8AM) Finish estimate 4:00P.M. _ Expected N,..mber of Participants: 500-800 Expected Number of People Viewing: none Description of Support Services Provided by Sponsoring Organization: Rescue Squad for 1st aid (5people), radio/communication people (8-10 people), check Ioint_people (25-30 people), cross guards if not provided by E.P. Police, registration workers (30 people), weary walker wagons (2), water trucks (2),Mini bifs)42 Name of Insurance Company: ,,,Fir,, ,„, n i c rar c parry ___ ` Phone Number: (619) 238-1R28 Agent's Name:_lawpnrp �_ Wpit9pn (Include copy of Proof of Insurance; i.e., policy or binder.) NOTE: The Public Safety Department has a limited number of volunteers to assist. The nature of your event may require the hiring of off-duty Public Safety Officers. This expense will be the responsibility of the sponsor. For Office Use Date Received: City Manager Preliminary Review: Date: Public Safety Review: Date: City Council Review: Date: Permit Issued: Date: (See Attached for Conditions) Permit Denied: Date: (See Attached for Reasons) 195.5 CERTIE[CATEOFINSORANCE""`` ; ISSUE GATE;MA;DDvn 3-23-89 g PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS ROBERT F. DRIVER COMPANY, INC. NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. P.O. BOX 670 EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. N DIEGO, CA 92112-4121 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE Lawrence A. Weitzen, Vice President COMPAhI (619) 238-1828 LETTER A FIREMANS FUND INSURANCE COMPANY COMPANY s INSURED LETTER COMPANY C LETTER PROJECT CONCERN, INC. COMPANY ♦7 P.O. Box 85323 LETTER San Diego, CA 92138 COMPANY LETTER E 'COVERAGESc. _:' • THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PENOO INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN.THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS.EXCLUSIONS,AND CONDI- TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS CO TYPE DF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER Pala'FEMME POLICY EXPIRATION ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS LTR GATE IMAVOINrI DATE IMMIWNYI GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000 :R A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIAEILITY MXX80342880 12/31/88 12/31/89 PRODUCTS.COMPTOPS AGGREGATE $ 1,000 ! CLAIMS MADE EOLCURRENCE PERSONAL 4 ADVERTISING INJURY $ 1,000 ... OWNERS S CONTRACTORS PROTECTIVE EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000 , LIRE OHMAGE,ANY ONE PRE) $ 50 MEOICAL EXPENSE ZANY ONE RENSOII $ 5 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY :.ww« p 7 ANY AUTO MXA80051995 12/31/88 12/31/89 C'Tt. ,$ 1,000 jr:Ta'�'.'il. ALL OWNEO AUTOS SWAY �-SCHEDULED AUTOS IPER PERSONI $ `-ter ,,-,, SODIIY r...,:!:,, y X wREO AUTOS 'NAM ..?" X NON OWNED AUTOS ME.,, $ ` GARAGE LIABILITY f:;.''.%i' PROPERTY ,s "-- DAMAGE g. _ EXCESS LIABILITY ''1^"`'- EACH AOGREGATI .` OCCURRENCE - $ $ A X OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM XOK2085857 12/31/88 12/31/89 ;,-+,a 2,000 2,000 $`_.:._ _ .. WORKERS'COMPENSATION STATUTORY $ 1,000 EEACH ACCIDENT) AND ' A EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY WC80374212 12/31/88 12/31/89 $ i,000 IDSEASI POLICY LIMIT) $ 1,000 IDISEASE EACH EMPLOYEEI OTHER t i 7 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS ILOCATIONS(VEHICLES/RESTRICTIONS/SPECIAL ITEMS Additional Insured: Homart Development ALL OPERATIONS, INCLUDING WALK FOR MANKIND Co., Sears, Roebuck & Co., Coldwell WALK: Minneapolis Walk for Mankind Banker Real Estate Group, Inc. WALK DATE: May 6, 1989 ERTIRCATEHOLDER: I CANCELLATIONS t Walk Director: SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX. Cal Meider PIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO 325 Hidden Lane MAIL ID DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE 11 Excelsior, MN 55331 LEFT.BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KING UPON THE COMPANY.ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESE TATIVE ' • (I rfl Ff.IT: .Z.X1 C7 C.': - PO Go • lD •i m CDsi 0 CD r* woo rs 0Ott w O f" _ (D rf`G '1 of lD e1 X' A et w lD rt rr •i R7• :M x m w w a t w w • w w o 6 f 0.0' ��M (� +� r rtn ro w OD to a >o - - Z et f7 w •i rr •• v -- o w e.• . w woo o ti w tel O 0 Ng X I Pi 000 m .•o 1 If (4c ^w 3 a � ;zPs o 4 0 a N. 0 7, Z 13 fa. C GCN PRIoRIE AD moo_ i e� , '�. sti J- 1 .1 , l_ I F�N ',C j F ec 10 A lu x k. / y ! - / 1 2 / r> cal leAve i lil. I / I. l Irt �� ''.: tk. '' . % ; A \/ ci 7, . . k i 4 \ t+ud�n / `` Or18 3Ay3s3l� Av7Qt / \ r 0 7,5)4 f \ . 195� o © ` • /1-- .. , , ,, 0 0 Obi r n •0 o /tif.:.) n n o / 4 m m - n w m Co la ' �� t , O e �� m 10 \L '''; ,. ,D.(- 1 _ . ..:: ... • f. „ /„,-./." '' ' -..' ,1'.' //\\ „, , .., _. \ - /_,p,, ./#,----,, ) . li II.. / Z:z,,,Ni . / / „/ - . 6.° /. // .A / ...C.% . ''' ‘7‘k 11' ,\--/c. . \ • •/ 7/ia /,, ),,, \.‘ p. m • 17- k ..'. %19a ' �\.......----...,,,c .\\\_. .., 1-• re � y cn ` C� ,` co \\ f ./g. .. •,, Atoys:. _::\ g&, N.- DI t - ,L6' \ .3// 7/ ,,,') /),, ',.. :Z*,...4\0 i \\ )LN. - / / / .1 \ :\•:// \ . , r = '-'' V /77;1.e' . ,, . \N), : 0 '''''S..'.... '1 c .f,, , k4/////:„.i..,... -c.,..--- rail \\ • /7 .•k ''\,\f?,.\,\; r---1. . T 40 $ rn a,: U y I • 1- I • �r��`f Y y to y CA 4 f�X t% m r L�U II 7 Net MU**SALSI _ n w•,.... �„�p„ �� MOMAPT Of VfIOPMfNT CO _�,• .. . $j: flJT' flI 'IBN. INTERNA1NA1 .. Our Work Saves Lives Since its inception in 1961. Project Concern International(PCI)has been a leader'n _ P, --,.. establishing community based primary health care for the disadvantaged Currently our programs are under way in Latin America. ���' T Asia,Africa and rural parts of the U S Originally. PCI provided only curative services +r But today it stresses disease prevention. the ;�. training of volunteer health workers. and the establishment of comprehensive local health ' systems 1 1 Project Concern not only assists people with ''" :'/. basic health care and related education. c_•4,I _ ' but also enlists them as true participants I ' in the process of their own development_ NI°'' ^is PCI strengthens existing capabilities. ,•= i Jgenerates new capacity, and builds .� self-reliance among those touched by its Project Concern focuses strongly on child survival, programs. maternal care and women's health. Key interventions he work of Project Concern Is include growth monitoring,oral rehydration therapy, promotion of breast feeding and proper feeding Services, Not Structures; practices,pre-and post-natal care for women,family Communities, Not Places; planning,immunization,and treatment of acute People, Not Things. respiratory infections and other serious childhood diseases. Where Your What Your Dollar Goes: Contribution 7 Will Buy: anti General / •$10 will treat 10 children for a week to 9%f foul remove intestinal parasites �a'�""t ■$20 will immunize 20 children against diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough •$25 will rehydrate 400 children suffering from diarrhea • 84% Progrttru Services •$30 will treat a malnourished child for one month in a nutritional clinic •$60 will provide two traditional birth attendants with basic work equipment 10 5°l PCt Is elwgibre ro receive coninbunons through the Combined Federal Campaign(CFC) Our Programs Include ■Sanitation and Hygiene , ■Health Education . , ■Midwife Training f, •Community Action Projects <, Ao„�• ,,,, •Family Health •Dental Care I` , i r r , •Nutrition Education and Improvement ■AmDoc/Option i,.,, r Jr f :ic1 PCI Countries ,. -. Y 9 .c Affiliations lita � 1I Ilk .y ,�;i AI.. i -^x^Y ac.9i A PCI health worker uses a measuring device for early detection of malnutrition. PROJECT CONCERN.,INTERNATIONAL , , 1 SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION 470 Pillsbury Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 July 25, 1989 Mr. Gary D. Peterson Mayor City of Eden Prairie 9440 Creekwood Drive Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 Ms. Patricia Pidcock Eden Prairie City Council 8379 Red Rock Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Contribution to Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition Our File No. LN400-51 Dear Mayor Peterson and Council Member Pidcock: On behalf of the Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition, I ask that the City of Eden Prairie contribute $10,000 to the Coalition to assist in financing its ongoing programs. As you know, the purpose of the Coalition is to work to secure the earliest possible construction of proposed new Highway 212 and widening of T.H. 5 from Interstate 494 to T.H. 41. The Coalition has been very active in the last three years in this effort. It has: 1. Facilitated the joint powers agreement among the Cities of Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska, Carver County, Hennepin County and MnDot relating to design of the widening of T.H. 5 in Eden Prairie and Chanhassen; 2. Facilitated the joint powers agreement among Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver County, Hennepin and MnDot relating to funding of the EIS on new T.H. 212; funding; Lobbied the Legislature for increased transportation 4. Lobbied MnDot for project programming; 5. Supported a joint powers agreement among Chanhassen, Chaska and Carver County to jointly study the highway network ancillary to T.H. 41 and U.S. Highway 212; and 6. Hired a full-time coordinator to work on its behalf. In our view, the most important goals of the Coalition in the next year will be to work to secure a federal grant or other funding of the design of new Highway 212 from I-494 to Norwood and to maintain oversight over and commitment to construct the widening of T.H. 5 from Wallace Road to T.H. 41. In order to finance these efforts, we are now embarked on an effort to obtain contributions from Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska, Carver County, and Hennepin County of $10,000 each. We will be formulating a program within the next 30 days under which we will be working to build our general membership between I-494 and the South Dakota boundary as well as seeking donations from major private organizations and other public bodies. We view our role as being that of a catalyst for action and a unifying force for all public and private organizations which will benefit by improvement of these roads. We hope that you agree that we have been and can be helpful to your organization in this role. If you would like a representative of the Coalition to appear before your council to answer questions about the activities of the Coalition, please contact me or Tom Workman, the Coalition's Coordinator. Until his permanent office arrangements are established, he may be reached at 448-3800. Thank you for your support. Ver truly yc�rs, g Robert J. Lindell President cc: Carl J. Jullie Coalition Board Members Tom Workman P.S. Checks may be sent to Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition, Attention Daryl Sudheimer, Treasurer, D & J Furniture, 524 South Elm, Waconia, Minnesota 55387. • MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gail Leipold, Chair Human Rights and Services Commission SUBJECT: Appointment to South Hennepin Human Services Council DATE: July 28, 1989 The Human Rights and Services Commission, at its meeting on July 10, 1989, recommended that Bette Anderson be appointed as one of the City's representatives to the South Hennepin Human Services Council. Bette would replace Melanie Voris who tendered her resignation recently. Bette has agreed to serve, pending Council approval. ►L)60I MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources,/ DATE: July 25, 1989 SUBJECT: Petition for Mini Park in Chatham Wood Neighborhood Earlier this year, a resident of the Chatham Wood area requested the City Park Planner to meet with several residents to discuss the possibility of developing a mini park on an open space outlot within the Chatham Woods area adjacent to Whittington Walk. Barb Penning Cross, Landscape Architect, met with the residents and prepared a concept plan for the mini park, as the residents requested, including an open space play area and a playstructure. In early June, the City received the petition and a letter from Dan Russ requesting the City consider developing this outlot into a mini park as per the concept plan that was desired by many of the residents. A copy of the first concept plan and the June 9th letter from Dan Russ is attached to this memo. Also, attached is a July 10th letter from Barb Penning Cross inviting residents of the Chatham Woods area to a July 17th meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission to consider this item. At the July 17th meeting, there were several neighbors in attendance supporting the concept plan; however, there was one neighbor whose address is 16582 Ashby Lane and whose home would be immediately adjacent to the playstructure who opposed the location of the playstructure. Two residents living directly across the street from the proposed park, at 16767 Whittington Way and 16771 Whittington Way, also had concerns regarding the noise that would come from this play area, and the resident to the north wanted heavier screening. Attached to this memo is a copy of the minutes of the July 17th meeting. Councilmembers will note that City staff have a great deal of concern regarding the concept plan desired by many of the neighbors, and City staff does not believe that this outlot is large enough to accommodate both a proposed play area and the proposed playstructure. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended the City Council consider approving a concept plan that would accommodate an open space play area and some adjacent landscaping on this outlot. This would satisfy what appears to be the major need of providing a play space for the immediate neighborhood, other than in the street. Since the July 17th meeting, staff have completed a revised concept ( plan that would develop a relatively flat play space and provide some landscaping to screen the active use area from the adjacent property owners and provide some improvements to what some people have described as an eyesore. The estimated cost to have this park graded, seeded and landscaped by a contractor, as per the concept plan, would be slightly over $16,000. The park maintenance division could accomplish this task for approximately half that cost; however, the park maintenance staff have projects committed to in 1989 that have not been accomplished as yet. It is unlikely that the maintenance staff could get to this project until late 1990, if then. It has become very apparent that if the City is to commit to these kinds of projects, the only way to ensure that they are done in a timely manner is to contract for these projects. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommended the City Council consider either funding this project out of the general fund reserves for 1889 or considering this project in the 1990 general fund budget. This project would also be eligible for development from cash park fees; however, there are many more projects committed from that fund than funding projections will allow at this time. City staff support the request for development of an open space play area and the adjacent landscaping, and would recommend the Council either authorize spending general fund reserves or consider this project in the 1990 budgeting process. BL:mdd 190 July 24, 1989 Dear Chatham Woods Area Resident: On July 17, 1989, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission reviewed a petition from neighbors in the area requesting a totlot and play area at the corner of Whittington Way and Ashby Lane. A number of residents were at the meeting to discuss their concerns. The large number of small children in the area, noise, proximity of play areas to the surrounding houses, and lack of City funds seemed to be the major issues. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission will recommend to the City Council, the area be graded level, seeded and landscaped. The preliminary concept plan and a rough cost estimate have been enclosed. The City Council will review this mini park at their August 1st meeting. The meeting will begin at 7:30 P. M., but the mini park will be towards the end of the agenda. You are invited to attend and to share your concerns with the Council. If you have questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 937-2262, ext. 273. Sin-c - Be�� Penni g Cross Landscape A itect City of Eden Prairie BPC:mdd 19Gt1 pJOB SHEET NO-_ MADE BY DATE JOB NO. prairea: cmorruse CHECKED BY DATE ewemrwre•uneoau SEC.$HT.NO. mew rnun uowwewu ION MO CALCULATIONS FOR Specification Number Item DescriptionUN i r POtJNt�t�E elo Unit Price Amount or item and Unn of Measure COP.. O �NE\. Dollars Cents , Dollar: Cents �Fv (ON COi\)T?CL L.,, o0 7/c0 oa CCH Mo?� ram, :) SY I SC,3 .LONVict l EXCAVATIO J ;_./ i-.2oo q FIN �: c Cry_ .o ,(...; _d V?) a �C..0.G rr��,.� '\ � J 7- a -.ARE.. TFt s 0. �0 aLJ I Lobo ...-----------......'-------- i I(14-1() DO _.e.'''''''e.''''''''''.-...:................„. . .., INS ►b'l'IZ �,�� / \\ y, .ri 0,-40 ....,0 1 No 6447/ iiiq ` W f—N 9 ( \mac a\\ I b,,\ go \ , _____ (6 11,4 \ 1 \ ....--"----' 111116 V 's,\ VW S. di I 1 , 9 $to h' viP 4114 1 \ 7. ,$i -bg/ O A0 1 1 Er:011-1°-----'' . 16582 1.-*---"ftlft-""---------1/ S ---___________________. . iior-481 I i:375f, tow" rwifitil, : 11o7v, QM -Fli.la ' Pig(' 1 tom. d MEMORANDUM C TO: Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission Mayor and City Council THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Barbara Penning Cross, Landscape Architect DATE: July 11, 1989 SUBJECT: Petition for Mini Park on City Owned Lot at the Corner of Whittington Walk and Ashby Lane Early this spring, a resident from the Chatham Woods neighborhood came into the City Hall asking the City to build a small mini park, on land the City currently owns. The neighborhood is requesting an open space where kids could play ball, and a playstructure. The resident stressed the fact that there are a large number of chil- dren in the area, and the willingness of the neighborhood to help with construction and maintenance of this property. Staff told him how other neighborhood groups had organized and petitioned the Commission and the City Council to build playgrounds in their neighborhoods. Staff also gave him playground manufacturer catalogs to show his neighbors. In early May, staff met with several of the neighbors on site. The neighbors again stressed the number of children that would use the facility and their willingness to help in any way they could. They also requested the staff to supply them with a concept plan to show residents specifically what the petition was requesting. The concept plan has been attached to this memo. A petition was signed by 31 families living in the immediate area. Staff understands the petition generally received a favorable response. Neighbors adjoining the proposed site have a number of concerns about a play area and totlot directly adjacent to their property. Staff has not spoken to these residents directly, but understands they are con- cerned about screening between their property and the play areas. The concept plan has eleven evergreen, 6' in height, depicted. More can be added if the Commission and Council decides to do so. A map is attached showing the proposed site and its proximity to other parks. The site is a .96 acre outlot the City currently owns. High Trail Estates Mini Park is about a third of a mile from the proposed site with sidewalk almost all the way. Facilities at the mini park include a small play area and a playstructure. Rustic Hills Park, which is part of the Edenbrook Conservation Area, and Eden Valley Park are neighborhood parks located in that area. Eden Valley Park is more directly accessible, and if the pathway from 168th Street to the northwest corner of the park goes C through, access will be made easier. As you can see from Dan Russ's letter dated June 9, 1989 the neighborhood feels that the majority of the children in that area are too small to walk that far. ItYP1 The playstructure the neighborhood chose from the catalog is the ( same structure that has been installed at several of our neighbor- hood parks. Staff has done a preliminary cost estimate. The entire project is estimated to cost approximately $14,200, or $15,000 with a backstop. These costs are based on contracted work due to the heavy work load of our City crews. Money has not been allocated for this project and there are no cash park fee reserves. Three hundred thousand dollars of revenue was estimated for this year, and so far only $100,000 has been received, so our cash park fees are operating in the hole. If the Commission feels this project is a high priority, the City could revise the Five Year CIP and shuffle priorities to try and fit it in. Adding this project to the general fund budget for 1990 is still an option at this time, because the budget has not yet been finalized. One possibility is for the neighborhood to find a source of income or raise money that-would fund the project. This has been a very nice neighborhood group to work with, but funds are not presently available for the construction of this project. Staff would recommend approval of the concept plan and would suggest the Commission request the City Council to add this project to the 1990 budget, or to initiate this project once another source of funding is found. BPC:mdd 4 l9�v .. . ep City of Eden Prairie e�Ef• /';.a,Offices Arai lr`IImo,. 4 1 Executive Drive • Eden Prairie,MN 55344.3677• Telephone(612)937.2262 July 10, 1989 Dear Chatham Woods Area Residents: A petition for a mini park in your area has been submitted to the City for consideration. The petition requests a play area and a totlot on City owned property at the corner of Ashley Lane and Whittington Walk. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission will review the petition Monday, July 17, at their regularly scheduled meeting. The meeting will begin at 7:30 P. M. and will be held in the Council Chambers at the City Hall, 7600 Executive Drive. The Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission, as well as City staff, would like to hear from you regarding this issue and invite you to attend. ( If you have any questions or are unable to be present, you can still provide input by calling me at 37-2262, ext. 273. �Sinc ; -_> Barbara Penn n Cross Landscape Ar tect City of Eden Prairie BPC:mdd i C l9(199 • June 9, 1989 Ms. Barbara Cross City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Dr. Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Barbara: I am writing to you as the unofficially appointed spokesperson for the Chatham Woods neighborhood concerning the city owned lot on the corner of Ashby Lane and Whittington Way. Pursuant to your drawing dated 5/3/88 showing a proposed play structure and play area on your .96 acre lot, I am hereby submitting to you 31 different family names, addresses and telephone numbers which represent approximately 57 children that live within one block of the proposed playground area. I was unable to reach and/or contact any additional families within the area. However, the neighborhood consensus at our Memorial Day party showed great support, as the closest neighborhood park is four blocks away and is too far for a great majority of the younger children to walk to. With that in mind, we as a neighborhood group are willing to pitch in and help as needed regarding the development of this lot. We are thereby volunteering our time and labor in any way to help C the City in construction and/or maintaining this piece. As a neighborhood group, we have, at your suggestion, selected tot lot equipment 1i8974 on page 47 of the Landscape Structures catalog that you supplied. The neighbors directly to the north, 16772 Whittington Way and 16582 Ashby Lane have both requested that they be at any council and park commission meetings regarding the proposal of this play area and play structure. Specifically, the neighbors at 16582 Ashby are concerned about screaming from the proposed play structure and this item should be addressed as shown in your concept plan. Barbara, we as a neighborhood are very excited and look forward to the development of the city's outlot and stand ready to help in any way that we can. Please keep me advised of your progress. Sincerely, Dan Russ 16717 Camborne Place C 829-3464 (Day) 937-0534 !qlo We the undersigned neighbors in the Chatham Woods neighborhood do hereby fully 1 - support the use of the city owned lot at Ashby Lane&Wittington Walk as a play area and tot lot. NAME ADDRESS & PHONE II OF O►CHILDREN . Q 1• ,.4-ad// /by 6orfO A gy '/,/ 7.4.., yi,74 ./4,1 .Jll ^ ((:'1?7 CAmPaKNF fit-. 3 — R,S,Z ri a4,rui /07 3 ei.,./,7, ,M/r� 2 /% 7 .. .,//....;,' n G.3 a...6,...K 't CZ /F SSI/ (7.oh...4 y c o J ' �/!',ir j CLLi.:iaa..6` ;,- /6 57) a...44c i.,yac-o„a f(\fin e*Peke ..�_ /01-6(, 77,r, -,., .3- /6 ,� ,, 3 c-„/ /0.5 S ca. ,a`k ,4h -2 f-/� y U U 1 rI� ? 1t1,1 . C!n-t nm l v,r FP / I - 1grvOr., /- /,i .E -/,, 4:-'7'76 l�/6�' ..��� ' cy„._,Iz,%5.� V ,fSi/' "./(,, 4.'!' /— /.A7 �.. l(%f/Tiike. %1 3//. i / , /;u95 �, / 'eA i 6 Siem. 1//44 c �1,kl ,Carte „ ., - 3aix es. v �-tihl ..9t. 4/ �,5/g•, gill L;.ciY' o. 9,7,S f W , •._c' / 2 .. • iMEI rM-rH bn a! 0-' 2(,• 4 " ' 6:7Z Ye'a -i 'et(X-H '- '• JV tz.I-4j)- erg We the undersigned neighbors in the Chatham Woods neighborhood do hereby fully support lthe.use of the city owned lot at Ashby Lane&Wittington Walk as a play area( and tot ot NUMBER/ACE NAME ADDRESS&PHONE F OF CHILDREN � f�i'1t00 I(07/7— nlanie/ZP. Q77-057- 3//-3—io .no-4( ,--4 c /6-24,30;4.7 t. L bi q,4.1-i9od 2{.�-s-P) MccIr'jf i'ZL'Cn 1,Q l' vr1Ct �� <9� (_les V A",r i,Uvtr4C d o f . tt�, £P g3'1-7434 ( (i 74) 3) r^ T.,i11d NA.au .,.Nr999 c[a�U. n GinJ F P 93Y-943n -- 1 C - aG' 4 7 \ eqzroSCPr waY - T •i\ -,, 7OY1100 -� iIo I71 , �� I . • 7, L log Et/EfI, EEt,/ ��. c A 1 ill / ( 4 1 1b7,o7 • ilrig ' /te I R___ 117 ...4 1 161 l Z i) �"� _� A614I1/ 1-4644 (" 4:0 co cry rcLiff 6.756 / 161bo I f C G.1 AA Jos CT AllIki'>Pv‘9ZL $ MihIt PP'F._zi $IEEE NO wiz���&•.. MAOE BY t"J DATE JOB NO. pr irr ia"mrNna' eneo CHECKED 8Y DATE SEC.SHT.NO. COINeeNIN^eM tiNtse M1 prMNM C FOR ALpit.A710H5 I�tM1 f+lf�`P.t/ CCl'r' ESTiII_, faGr.' Specification a i or i em Item Description UNIT p6GjpN..\.°to Unit Prfca Amount Nuants Unit of Measure J <NQs.- Dollars Cents Dalian Cents lPN sT�x�u ��t14 L' 7 6,1to71Nie riMilklcr LP ISO 1 o0 I1n20 CoD (c ze'CEu VEF-E{7) _./- I� 67 cu -Teo 00 av , FINE)E'42 OE SEJ `.D.) ao ao co / Z ¢�ucrr�9/a zrsH�or:. tc40 r Evr cCi t U 0 ° O ° 30 Q° ----'..---'-'-------;,) l q=OSO c 1.,,, / ... -- - V ,ii. ! Nit9_CHXANDLE:k. '-. il!fi El Ix ' �gm=� of A :a ' ' 'ai =1Is W-10 �� la • %Aria lei. iii A„.• s 6,.. 4t. St :.,i p.!. .:n Await 2 = :.. 4 .07(Y - z = •• v `• MANOR RR .: ,-_ r •y ..1.M::.@:ga:q:'. 111111101k. UM 'NIL. . _ ,. __,......_ ....• .., i. ir MM. ' , Airiel; r Q :_:.;;: 5, IEEE fir ah.. irk .................... .. .... , ..:,:=!..ii.:!!.ii. !i!,u!,: i:::: .':-,..:.1,ro- ,...• , ................. ............_ • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• �� _W cvo. • r-c '�' Y :.:INAMM!'ii:iitlil.:i..$1: liii.11:::' II 1.1 - ill a p,MANOR RQ ` ,den • In Mal ir °I3F4C1i WA aim :.:::.,...,.:......,. , , , ___. idi : . 3 AI Lip Hah3 Mr-r- ..""1"----..,„&s,--Iii -.:'::::.::•:-...1::.:'•.:::-,i,i.::'::r:.z,.:.:...'-'ir:.-.'l'i'isi'll:::.':::::-:'::::-::-1::.s.::1.;::::..''''`+' ir- EA .. H Y- mz CIR. -IJim. . ..„:.;,,,:.•...,,:.::,...:.:,:.::.:„..f,.:,..::,:: . !RE' • ' UMW BA' .:Q[l iX Z:: ICE: .., BAY If .ti'. . se - • M'raj a eft .�• �■ ... � jam.::.. ® UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, RECREATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Monday, July 17, 1989 7:30 p.m. , City Hall COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Pat Breitenstein, chairperson; Bud Baker, Moe Cook, Karon Joyer, Pat Richard COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Mikkelson, Charles Shaw COMMISSION STAFF: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources; Lori Helling, Recreation Manager; Tom Eastman, Supervisor of Operations; Barb Cross, Landscape Architect I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by chairperson, Pat Breitenstein. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Joyer moved to approve the agenda as printed. Baker seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 1989 MOTION: Joyer moved to approve the minutes as printed. Cook seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. IV. PETITIONS, REQUESTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Refer to memo dated July 11, 1989 from Barb Cross, Landscape Architect. Cross met with residents living on Whittington Walk and Ashby Lane. The residents are asking for a small mini park play area and playstructure on a city owned • lot at the corner of these two streets. There are many young children in this neighborhood who are unable to reach other neighborhood parks in the area. The residents said they would be willing to do everything • they could to help the city with this play area. Cross told the residents how other neighborhoods had petitioned the City to build playgrounds in their neighborhoods and also showed them playground equipment catalogs. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. 8 NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 17, 1989 -2- Cross met with the residents on site in May. At this time, the residents stated that they would be willing to build and/or maintain the play area. They also requested a plan which they could show to other residents. Cross developed a concept plan for a proposed - play area for the site as preferred by residents. This concept plan is included in the packets. 31 families from this neighborhood signed a petition supporting the construction of a play area on this lot. However, there are some adjoining neighbors who have concerns about a play area located on this site. Cross said that a map was also included in the packets showing the proximity of other parks to this neighborhood and the facilities they offer. A rough estimate of costs to develop a play area is approximately $14,200 which is based on contracted work, as city crews have a heavy workload and would not be able to complete the work. No money has been allocated for development of this play area at this time and there are no cash park reserves. An estimated $300,000 of revenue was estimated for this year, but so far only $100,000 has been received and there are other commitments for this money. If it is felt that a play area in this neighborhood is a high priority, the five year CIP could be revised to shuffle the priorities and add this project, the neighborhood could try to raise the funds or it could be added to the 1990 operating budget. Lori Olson of 16581 Ashby Lane said that her main concern is for the children in the neighborhood. The lot is an eyesore at this point and after talking to several realtors, it is felt that a totlot would raise the value of homes in the area. At this time, the children play in the cul-de-sac and because of the fast traffic, it is a dangerous situation. Dan Russ of 16717 Camborne Place said that 30+ families in the neighborhood with at least 57 children were contacted about a play area on this lot. This is a very active neighborhood group and they would be willing to participate in the clean-up of this lot and any other work that is necessary to complete the project. At this point, the lot is a collecting point for debris and if funding for the play area is a problem, the neighbors would be willing to help. UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 17, 1989 -3- Kim Yilek of 16582 Ashby Lane lives in the home directly adjacent to this lot. She feels the concept plan is totally unacceptable because it is too close to the property line. When she called the City to inquire about this lot, she was told that they preferred to leave it as it is for drainage purposes. Yilek said she is not against the idea of a play area, but wants it to be screened well. She cannot afford to fence the entire 300+ feet and thinks it should be centered better on the lot than what the concept plan shows. She spoke with several realtors regarding the issue and was told that a play area on this lot would be a minus or lower the value of her home. Yilek asked if there would be a possibility to leave a buffer of wild grass to screen the area better and define property lines. Olson commented that not all children from the neighborhood will be using the park at the same time and that they will not abuse the neighbor's yards. Pam Fordge of 16763 Whittington Walk said her experience has been that the neighborhood children have always been cooperative and well behaved and she did not anticipate any problems with having a play area located on this lot. Cross said she has received eight phone calls from residents in this area who area who are in favor of the playground. They feel the lot is an eyesore. She received a letter from Charles Davis of 16772 Whittington Walk who was unable to attend this meeting. Mr. Davis was against the idea of having a backstop in the park and would like the playstructure to be 100 feet from the south lot line. He suggested that three 6' pine trees would not be enough of a barrier and felt that nine would be better. He also felt that shade trees would enhance the lot and the location of the playstructure on the lot was acceptable to him. Lambert referred to the playground structure on 168th • St. which had to be moved after three years because of the excessive noise problem to the neighbor. There was some discussion at that point of having a minimum • distance from homes. 100% of the residents in the Prairie East 7th neighborhood petitioned to have the playstructure removed. Lambert said it is difficult for him to recommend a playstructure in this location because of the noise potential. He feels this piece � I U UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 17, 1989 -4- of property is not large enough for a playstructure and play area and was never planned as a mini park. Yilak said that there is another outlet across the street and maybe it would be possible to put a playstructure in that location and a play area here. Olson commented that there are mature trees on that lot. Lambert said a playstructure can be worked in around trees. Ralph Koloski of 16771 Whittington Walk said that he was not aware of any plans for this lot until he received the letter from the City about this meeting. He said his home is located closer than 100 feet from this lot and he was not approached about signing the petition. Tom Streagle of 16767 Whittington Walk said his home is located directly across the street from this lot. His only concern is the noise. Cook said he feels the neighbors are trying to accomplish too many things in a limited amount of space and will have to determine whether they want a playstructure or an open play area. He asked if fill would be required on this lot. Lambert said that the area has not been surveyed, but the area is not flat. Cook asked how far this neighborhood is from Eden Valley Park. Lambert said it is within a half mile away. Baker asked why the City owns this lot. Lambert said the original intent was to have an open space corridor for drainage and wildlife protection and the developer was required to dedicate this outlet to the City. Baker asked what was the source of the noise complaints from the 168th St. park. Lambert said it was the playstructure. Baker asked how the noise level would be in an open play area. Lambert said it should be less because older children would be using the area. There was a discussion at one point about setting a standard for distance, but this did not happen. '9'A UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. 8 NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 17, 1989 1� -5- Baker asked if there is any other City owned property in this neighborhood that could be used for a playstructure. Lambert said it appears that any area would be tight for a playstructure. The recommended minimum size for a mini park is two acres although they should preferably be 3-4 acres. Cross said that this lot is only .96 acres. Baker asked if it would be possible to scale this down to a less active use area similar to the large sandbox at Staring Lake. Lambert said this would be a possibility. Joyer said she feels residents are looking for space for younger children because other parks are too far away. She said that when the Timber Creek development was discussed, a bridge over the creek was being considered. Lambert said this will be a very expensive project, but it will be considered in the future. It is low on the priority list at this point. Cross said a number of the phone calls she received were from residents with small children who said that other parks in the area do not have facilities for younger kids. Lambert commented on fencing the area and the request for a 6' screen. The City screens parks to a certain extent, but they do not build fences. Park hours are from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Cross said she also received comments on possible parking problems, lighting and the fast traffic on the loop road in this neighborhood. Olson said this will not be a City park and she feels that the noise will not be a problem. The park would be for the safety and good of the children in the area. Lambert said there are other neighborhoods in Eden • Prairie just as large as this that have parks further distance away than this neighborhood. When planning for parks, the City has set standards for a 10-20 acre park within a 1-1/2 mile radius of surrounding homes. If areas are further away than this, a neighborhood park is constructed. The neighborhood is within these ranges. Mini parkes are generally developed if the neighborhood park is over 1/2 mile away or if there is a large high density neighborhood with very small lots. 19CO UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 17, 1989 -6- Russ said that of the 57 children in the neighborhood, only four are over 13 years old and ten are 2 years old and under. He asked if perhaps the lot could be graded and seeded to begin with and see how it works out before a playstructure is added. Cook asked how large the lots in this neighborhood are. Koloski said they are approximately 1/2 to 3/4 acre. MOTION: Baker moved to recommend a redesign of the concept plan to less active use to reduce noise potential. Joyer seconded the motion. On call for discussion, Sue Sorenson of 16579 Ashby Lane said she is in favor of cleaning up the lot for a play area, but is against having a large sand box because of the small children in the area. The motion passed 4-0. Russ asked if the lot could be cleaned up and mowed without waiting a couple more months for approval. Lambert said that the City has many commitments this year and work would have to be contracted out. He said he could get a cost estimate to grade, seed and landscape the lot, but funds are not available. The estimate will be brought to the City Council to see if funding is available this year or put into the 1990 budget. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources ��`/kL DATE: July 11, 1989 SUBJECT: May 10th Letter From Marcia Taubr, Project Officer Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development, Regarding Miller Park Attached is a May 10th letter from Marcia Taubr, Project Officer Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development, reminding the City of Eden Prairie that as per the LAWCON manual whenever the City acquires property through LAWCON grants development must occur tw000 years ro m that between the date of ac acquisition. The National Park Service should be open for public recreation n and development, the park purposes. The City has no agreement as to what type of development will occur at Miller Park other than we did commit to developing a public Caccess on the lake; therefore, as long as the City is allowing the staffublic opinion that the City will use of the land and lhave ops t met the intent of hehe public access it igrant agreement. Staff had been renting this land out for farm purposes until 1989. In the contract with the renter for 1988, he was required to seed that the land into alfalfa. The renter did seed the property into alfalfa; however, due to the dry conditions of 1988, the majority of the alfalfa crop died shortly after germination. The majority of the land is now covered by weeds. Staff is presently obtaining quotes to spray for the weeds and disc them under, and to seed the property in a rough grass seed during the fall of 1989. Staff will also be requesting authorization to construct a class V road and parking lot into a boat launch in 1990, and will begin clearing the dead vegetation in the wooded area to allow the public to use the park for picnic purposes beginning in 1990. This minimal development will allow Eden Prairie residents access hthis is lake lake elig bleand ed forse DNR management p of the fish and will also makef population. BL:mdd c" rna • b. , M nnesotasDepartrnenrof.• Community Development Division Tr`aderand,EconomicDevelopmenc 900 American Center 150 East Kellogg Boulevard 1. St.Paul,MN 55101.1421 612/296.5005 • Fax:612/296-1290 May 10, 1989 Mr. Robert Lambert, Director Eden Prairie Parks 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 RE: LW27-1040S, 1021H and 1078C, Miller Park City of Eden Prairie Dear Bob: As you know, Eden Prairie received three Federal and State grants to acquire Miller Park. The contracts that the City signed reference the LAWCON manual. I enclose the pages that pertain to Acquisition for Delayed Development. Basically, you will see that development must occur two years from the date of acquisition. The National Park Service also expects that between acquisition and development the park should be open for public recreation purposes. We must ask you to proceed to develop Miller Park and to provide us with your plans and timetables. If you have questions, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, J iktIAAik Marcia Taubr Project Officer MT/cdr OR.GEN/IV107-1 Enclosure An Equal Opportunity Employer 1V5 - • CHAPTER 640.2 L&WCF GRANTS •1ANUAL of the 3 year period. This request should include 1) a full description of the property's open space value and public recreation use, and 2) an update of the project sponsor's plans for developing outdoor recreation facilities on the property. In granting such an exception, the Service recognizes that certain non-recreation uses are compatible with limited public recreation use of the property and the enjoyment of open space values. The. Regional Director shall not grant an extension of the 3 year limit if public recreation access and open space values are not present. If an extension of the 3 year limit is granted, the project sponsor cannot be reimbursed until all non-recreation uses have ceased (see Section 640.2.8C). E. EXCEPTIONS. This policy does not preclude the continuation or introduction of non-recreation uses such as timber management, grazing and other natural resource uses not including agriculture which are clearly described in the project application, are compatible with and secondary to the outdoor recreation uses • intended for the property, and are approved by the Service. (see Section 640.2.5) • 9. Uniform Relocation and Acquisition. All acquisitions with Fund assistance must be made in accordance with the applicable provisions of Public Law 91-646, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (see Chapter 650.3). 10. Acquisition Which Will Not Be Assisted. A. Acquisition of historic sites and structures will not receive L&WCF Cassistance. Exceptions may be made only when it is demonstrated clearly that the acquisition is primarily for outdoor recreation purposes and that the historic aspects are a corollary to the primary recreation purposes. This exclusion need not prevent the consideration by States and the Service of projects calling for • acquisition of real property interests contiguous to or near historic sites and structures which meet priority outdoor recreation needs. Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 is required for all acquisitions (see Chapter 650.4). B. Acquisition of museums and sites to be used for museums or primarily for archeological excavations will not receive LBWCF assistance. C. . Acquisition of land to help meet a public school's minimum site size • .requirement, as established by State or local regulations will not receive L&WCF assistance. D. Acquisition of areas and facilities designed to be used primarily for semi-professional and professional arts and athletics will not receive LiwCF assistance. E. Acquisition of areas and facilities to be used solely for game • refuges or fish production purposes will not receive L&WCF C Manual Release 147 Replaces: MR 125 12/14/73 MR 140 3/22/83 4 8. Accv;siticn for Oelaved :evlocment A. General. LSWCF assistance may be available to acquired property for which the development of outdoor recreation facilities is planned at a future date. In the interim, between acquisition and development, the property should be open for those public recreation purposes which the land is capable of supporting or which can be achieved wits' a minimum public investment. Non-recreation uses such as agriculture occurring on the property at the time of acquisition may continue for up to 3 years, contingent upon approval by the Service. In this case the project sponsor shall not receive payment on the project until the non-recreation use is terminated. (see Section 640.2.8C) 8. Procedures. If development will-.be delayed for more than two years from the date of acquisition, the project sponsor shall include the following information in the project application. (1) Why immediate acquisition of the property is necessary. (2) What facilities will be developed and when such development will occur. (3) What, if any, non-recreation uses will be continued on the .- property and when such non-recreation uses will be terminated. (4) The type of public recreation access that will be provided during the interim period. C. Non-Recreation Use. In applications where the continuation of an existing non-recreation use is anticipated, the project sponsor shall, in addition to the above information, include the following ' condition in the project agreement to assure the LSWCF payment is not • requested until the non-recreation use is terminated: c _ •The.State will receive no payment from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for those parcels of land supporting •non-recreation uses until the project sponsor has terminated such uses.' Furthermore, the project application should also include: (1) Assurance that any income received by the project sponsor for the non-recreation use will be used in accord with the provisions of Section 675.1.8; (2) Assurance that the non-recreation use will be terminated within 3 years from the date of acquisition; and • (3) A written request to the'Regional Director for concurrence in the continuation of the non-recreation use during the interim period. D. Extension of the 3 Year Limit. In applications where public access for recreation purposes will be provided, the continuation of the non-recreation use beyond the 3 year limit may be extended by the Regional Director. The State should submit a written request for such an extension to the appropriate Regional Director before the end Manual Release 147 Replaces: MR 125 12/14/73 • MR 140 3/22/83 3 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 17, 1989 -9- Baker asked what is in mind for the lower southwest corner. Lambert said nothing is planned at this time. Cross said that the old City Hall site would be the closest, but it is not centrally located. Cook agreed with the staff recommendation to provide rinks for the 1989-90 season and monitor their usage. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Letter from MN Department of Trade & Economic Development Re: Miller Park Refer to memo dated July 11, 1989 from Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources. Lambert said that Miller Park will be seeded this fall. The City will also apply for a boat launch request and gravel driveway. He added that this land was not acquired contingent upon a park plan. MOTION: Richard moved to recommend proceeding with staff's recommendation for Miller Park in order to retain the LAWCON grant. Joyer seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. Baker asked what size grant the City could lose if this park was not developed. Lambert said it covered three grants and the total would exceed $300,000. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Carl Jullie, City Manager FROM: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources DATE: July 25, 1989 SUBJECT: Request to Consider Reduced Fees for Use of the Pool to Families on Public Assistance Attached is a letter from Jeanne Carsello, of the Eden Prairie Family Center, suggesting the City consider providing subsidized memberships to the Community Center, or reduced fees, or free use of the pool to low income families. Also, attached to this memo is Lyndell Frey's memo regarding the youth scholarship program, Tom Eastman's memo regarding Community Center fees and my letter to Jeanne Carsello describing the action taken by the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and inviting her to attend the August 1st meeting. In summary, the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommend that the City not provide any additional subsidized programs or fees at this time, but that the staff continue to monitor the needs of low income families regarding access to City facilities and programs. The July 19th letter to Ms. Carsello sums up the discussion at the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission meeting and outlines the other subsidized programs the City has in place. Ms. Carsello did not attend the meeting of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission and may or may not be in attendance at the August 1st meeting. BL:mdd tqVi City of Eden Prairie City Offices ache r t, Executive Drive • Eden Prairie,MN 55344-3677 e Telephone(612)937-2262 prairrm July 19, 1989 Jeanne Carsello Eden Prairie Family Center 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 RE: Request to Provide Reduced or Free Use of the Pool to Families on Public Assistance Dear Ms. Carsello: City staff forwarded your June 20th letter to the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission for discussion at their July 17, 1989 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission discussed the pros and cons of providing subsidized memberships to the Community Center, or reduced fees, or free use of the pool to low income families. Commission members indicated that it would be nice to be able to accommodate every suggestion the City receives for reducing fees to not only low income families, but to other groups such as swimming teams, hockey teams, etc. that request lower fees. The Commission pointed out that the City has a "scholarship policy" that budgets for providing $50 worth of subsidized recreation fees per child per year for low income families. Above and beyond that $50 subsidized program, the City allows each child in a low income family one free session of swimming lessons per season (four seasons per year) to ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn how to swim. Commission members also pointed out that the Round Lake swimming beach offers free swimming during the summer months and is the same distance from Briarhill as the Community Center. The City recently started working with residents from Windslope in the development of a Neighborhood Outreach Program by providing recreation programs for those children two nights per week on a year-round basis through a County grant. If this program is • successful at Windslope this year, the program could be expanded to Briarhill next year, if residents of Briarhill see the need for this program. Swimming is one of the many activities those children will participate in during the next year. Jeanne Carsello -2- July 19, 1989 The Neighborhood Outreach Program at Windslope was initiated by parents in the Windslope Apartment complex. Those parents became organized and applied for the grant because they saw the need for additional youth recreation programs. The City was more than happy to assist those people with their needs. Although Edenvale Park was constructed with Community Development Block Grants in a location immediately accessible to the Briarhill Apartment complex, residents of Briarhill have never contacted the City regarding any special needs for programs or services. I appreciate your concern regarding low income families in Eden Prairie and agree that all families within this community deserve and need a safe, affordable place to recreate. As you can see, the City has made some effort to ensure that low income families are not denied the use of recreation facilities and programs. I will be forwarding your letter, along with a copy of the Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Commission recommendations, to the City Council for final review of this request at the August 1st meeting. You are certainly invited to attend that meeting to participate in the discussion. Again, I want to thank you for your interest in your fellow citizens. Sincerely, Robert A. Lambert Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources City of Eden Prairie RAL:mdd MEMORANDUM TO: Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources Commission THRU: Bob Lambert, Director of Parks, Recreation & Natural Resources FROM: Tom Eastman, Supervisor of Operations DATE: July 12, 1989 SUBJECT: Community Center Fees Regarding the attached letter from Jeanne H. Carsello, Parent Educator at the Eden Prairie Family Center, it is true that the Community Center does not have special rates for low income families. In 1981, before the Community Center opened to the public, Commission and Council members established a fee structure for Community Center users. This fee schedule covered lesson programs, memberships, hourly rentals, and daily use fees. Two things were taken into consideration at that time. 1. The Community Center should be an affordable place for Eden Prairie residents to recreate. 2. The fees should be set to help cover yearly operating costs. With that in mind, the Community Center has raised its daily use fees and lesson fees once since the building opened. Example: adult swimming and skating from $1.50 to $2.00. In 1987 the membership package was restructured and rates established to reflect the same philosophy set in 1981. Hourly rental fees are evaluated on a yearly basis as to whether they should be increased or not. (Hourly fees generally reflect youth associations and high school programs.) Below is a listing of Community Center membership and daily use fees for your review. MEMBERSHIP: RATES RESIDENTS NON-RESIDENTS Youth $ 65 per year $100 per year Adult $125 per year $175 per year Family $175 per year $250 per year Sr Citizens $62.50 per year $87.50 per year Memberships are good for one year from date of purchase. DAILY USE FEES - SWIMMING: MEMBERS NON-MEMBERS Adults Free $2.00 Age 5 & over Free $1.00 Age 4 & under Free $ .50 SKATING: Adults Free $2.00 Youth Free $1.00 Family Free $4.00 FITNESS CENTER: All ages Free $2.00 RACQUETBALL: Members $2.00 Residents $4.00 Non-Residents $5.00 Senior Citizens that do not have a membership are charged half price on daily use fees and lesson programs. Currently, the Recreation Department offers a youth scholarship program that is designed to assist low income families in Eden Prairie who wish to participate in recreation programs (see memo dated March 15,1988 from Lyndell Frey, Recreation Supervisor. Subject: Youth Scholarship Program). This program does include Community Center lessons and classes. In closing, if City officials wish to establish a special fee program for low income residents, careful consideration should be given to the guidelines set forth as to what qualifies that person or persons for that program, and what percentage of reduction there should be on memberships. TE:mdd cc: Jeanne H. Carsello Parent Educator Eden Prairie Family Center i MEHfMANDtui TO: Bob Lambert, Director of Community Services • FROM: Lyndell Frey, Recreation Supervisor DATE: March 15, 1988 SUBJECT: Youth Scholarship Program In the past, very few people have taken advantage of the Scholarship Program offered through the City and Community Education Department. On March 9th I attended a meeting conducted by PROP with several apartment complex managers in attendanoe. The topio of discussion was summer programs and activities for youth as well as adults. Other agencies such as the Police Department, Red Cross, Shape, etc. were in attendance. At this meeting it was requested of the Community Services Department to let people become more aware of the Scholarship Program, Currently it is listed in the Brochure which is mailed to each Eden Prairie household quarterly. I am very much in favor of the Scholarship Program and I feel I can speak for the entire recreation staff in expressing the importance of allowing all youth an opportunity to participate in oity programs. Hy concern, however, is the fact that many of our programs are projected at a balance of revenue and expenditures. If a large scale of scholarships start flooding in it will be very difficult to maintain that balance. It is also important to note that if a few basio perimeters are set we will avoid any persons from taking advantage of C the scholarship program to the extent of jeopardizing the program. ear imeters_Inr t.he_Youth ,h^larshie.Ersaium 1. Parent or Guardian must live or work in Eden Prairie. 2. The Basic Scholarship information must be filled out. (See Scholarship Application) 9. Only youth scholarship applications will be accepted. (Unless applicant is applying for the activity for the entire family.) Example: Family Cross Country Ski Lessons. 4. One session of swimming lessons per season will be allowed. In addition the applicant may not exceed $50.00 of scholarship moneys for any one calendar year. This doesn't include the cost of their swimming lessons. This $50.00 limit would be in addition to the one session per season of swimming lessons. 5. All scholarships would be recorded and debited to that specifio program. As an example John Doe is interested in the following youth programs: Summer Playground Program, cost $10.00; Youth Camping program, cost $30.00 and the Youth Tennis Program, cost $16.00 for a total of $56.00. His parent or parents whould need to obtain $8.00 for John to participate in those 9 summer programs. In addition if John's parents would like him to take beginning swimming he would also be eligible under the scholarship program to take that class at no cost. The purpose of this memo is to propose to the Parks Commission and City Council the adoption of this program with the understanding the funds would be allocated through City funding. . . . Q�„s,E FAly1,yc ( - rz.) —.)'',7Q9' 44(1. ci, ,,A 8950 Eden Prairie Road Eden Prairie,MN 55344 June 20, 1989 612/934-3838 Bob Lambert Eden Prairie City Hall 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Dear Mr. Lambert, I would like to bring to your attention a concern I have for the overall well-being of Eden Prairie's families. In my wait with families at&iarhill, a subsidized housing complex, I have discovered a goup of Eden Prairie residents who truly need their communitys support. Schooner days and the Round Lake concerts are big attractions. However, they have no affordable place to swim indoors in their community. These families are within walking distance of the Community Center but cannot afford the $175 membership to their recreation facility. These families deserve and need a safe, affordable place to recreate. I believe they would use the facility often if they could. Please consider taking steps to offer reduced fee or free use of the pool to families on public assistance. I spoke with Tom Eastman, manager of the Community Center,who said that fees were determined to be affordable by all residents, In my opinion this belief needs to be reviewed. Eden Prairie, as a forward looking community with great income diversity, should carefully consider its responsibilities to its"hidden tansies'. Thank you fa•your time. Please contact me if I can be of any assistance to you on this issue. truly yours, 1� °'&(.14-FL'''' �',1�� pp J ne H. Carsello 4. Parent Educator, Eden Prairie Family Center C cc: Tom Eastman, Eden Prairie Community Center Ada Alden, Eden Prairie Family Center Jeanne Zetah,Community Education Director A division of Eden Prairie School District 272,Community Educational Services 199 UNAPPROVED MINUTES EDEN PRAIRIE PARKS, REC. & NATURAL RESOURCES COMM. July 17, 1989 { -7- 2. Request from Jeanne H. Carsello Re: Development of Swimming Pool Fees for Low Income Families Refer to memo dated July 12, 1989 from Tom Eastman, Supervisor of Operations. Lambert said that a request was received from Jeanne Carsello requesting the City to subsidize or provide free swimming passes to people in low income housing. Baker asked how many children are in low income housing in Eden Prairie. Lambert said this would include both Briarhill and Windslope which have at least 500-600 total units, but he is uncertain on the number of children. Lambert said he is concerned with subsidizing only certain programs or offering them free of charge. Richard asked if the request is for user fees or lessons. Lambert said the request is for user fees, as scholarships cover the cost of lessons. Richard agreed that parents have to make some decisions on the programs their children are able to participate in and we have to say no at some point. Cook asked how far Briarhill is from the Community Center. Lambert said it is 1-1/2 to 2 miles. Cook asked what ages are considered youth. Eastman said youth are considered to be 18 years old and younger. Cook commented that subsidized or free swimming for low income youth could amount be significant. Lambert said he would like to make facilities available to everyone, but there are no parameters to follow. If the Commission is interested in developing this program, staff needs guidelines. Joyer noted that very few people have taken advantage of the scholarship program. Lambert said these figures were from 1988 before the program was advertised and it is being used now and, in fact, the scholarship budget for 1989 would run out in the next few months. ICY1q / MOTION: Richard moved to recommend denial of the request i` for subsidized or free swimming for low income youth with the issue to be re-evaluated if further requests are received. Cook seconded the motion. On call for discussion, Lambert reminded the commission of the Neighborhood Outreach Program for Windslope which will be held two nights per week and will include taking the kids swimming. This program may also be started at Briarhill next year if it works out well and if Briarhill residents are willing to initiate a program grant. The motion passed 4-0. Belling noted that additional funding for the scholarship program could be considered. IC 5 • MEMORADUM Join— T0: Mayor and City Council �V City Manager Carl Jullie FROM: Chief of Police Keith Wall pat SUBJECT: Parade Permit Request by Project Concern International Oi DATE: July 31, 1989 QJ,i* Section 6.20 of the City Code requires that the Chief of Police report findings regarding parade requests as described by an organization in its application for a City permit. These findings cover the following areas: 1) Whether the parade will cause a hazard to persons or property; 2) Whether the parade will cause great inconvenience to the public; and 3) Whether the Chief of Police is able to make arrangements for necssary direction and control of traffic. As related in the memorandum from Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson regarding this parade permit, I cannot state that I will be able to make the logistical and staff arrangements necessary for the safe direction and control of traffic. Without these measures being taken for public safety, the parade could present a hazard to persons and property. For these reasons, I recommend denial of the parade permit as an appropriate action. Item: Hunting Zone ftelY July 31, 1989 SaI/1hf' �City of Eden Prairie 7600 Executive Drive Eden Prairie, MN. 55344 • Dear Mayor and Council Members: we all realize Eden Prairie is a rapidly changing and growing community. The southwest corner of the City is starting to feel this growth, and hunting cannot continue in the future. Myself and a few friends have hunted waterfowl on my Mother's farmland in this area for several years. The property is secluded and basically unchanged since it was first farmed. This land and the surrounding area consists of 3 DNR designated 'etlands, and several hundred acres of farmland and woods. There are no homes, roads or development at this time, although some of this land has been sold and changes are imminent in the near future. We feel since this area will not be disturbed this year, and is not easily accessible, it might be possible to continue waterfowl hunting for this coming fall of 1989. In past years, there has been no problems or complaints with this area as far as we know. Sincerely, Paul Jacques